ELAM 


VJj^ML^^^M 


ARCH/£OLOW 


VOLU 


1 

1 

k. 

^m 

jiMtf^ 

^■OLAf 

A. 

T OFF TEEN 

EGYPT 


ETHIOPIA 


#C!B^ 


>     DEC  3  1909     *, 


Division 


IResearcbee  in  36ibltcal  Hrcbaeolog^ 


ISSUED   UNDER  THE  AUSPICES  OF  THE  ORIENTAL  SOCIETY  OF 
THE  WESTERN  THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 


EDITED  BY 

OLAF  A.  TOFFTEEN,  Ph.D. 


THE  HISTORIC  EXODUS 


Books  by  the  Same  Author 


Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I 
(Researches  in  Biblical  Archaeology,  Vol. 
Price:  $2.50 
Postage  extra,  20  cents 


Researches  in  Assyrian  and  Babylonian 
Geography,  Part  I 

Price:  $1.00 

Postage  extra,  4  cents 


The  Historic  Exodus 


BY 


[*     DEC  3  1909     '■ 
^>   '-^■<^-^- —   *v> 


OLAF  A.  TOFFTEEN,  Ph.D. 

PROFESSOR    OF   SEMITIC    LANGUAGES    AND    OLD  TESTAMENT    LITERATURE 
WESTERN   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 


PUBLISHED    FOR   THE 
ORIENTAL   SOCIETY   OF   THE   WESTERN   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY 


CHICAGO 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 

1909 


Copyright  1909  Bv 
OLAF  A.  TOFFTEEN 


Composed  aud  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.  S.  A. 


TO 
THE  REV.  WILLIAM  OTIS  WATERS,  S.T.D. 

President  of  the  Oriental  Society 

OF  THE 

Western  Theological  Seminary 


PREFACE 

Scarcely  two  years  have  passed  since  I  published,  in 
this  series,  my  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I.  In  that  vol- 
ume I  treated  biblical  chronology  solely  on  the  basis  of 
dates  furnished  by  the  Bible,  taking  them  at  their  face 
value,  and  without  any  inquiry  either  into  the  age  of  the 
documents  in  which  they  occurred,  or  into  their  historicity. 
I  promised  then  that  these  questions  would  be  taken  up 
in  a  future  volume,  to  be  called  Side-Lights  on  Biblical 
Chronology.  This  is  that  volume.  It  has  been  found 
advisable  to  confine  it  more  closely  to  the  Exodus  than 
was  originally  purposed,  and  consequently  the  title  has 
been  changed,  the  more  closely  to  fit  the  contents. 

The  reception  of  my  former  book  has  been  most  grati- 
fying to  me.  In  a  work  of  so  broad  a  scope,  and  in  a  field 
so  uncertain  and  unexplored,  it  was  not  to  be  expected 
that  all  my  conclusions  should  meet  with  unanimous 
approval.  What  I  did  hope  for  was  that  critics  might 
recognize  the  earnestness  of  purpose  which  I  had  in  pre- 
senting it,  and  the  great  care  which  I  had  taken  to  be 
accurate  and  scholarly  in  both  my  views  and  my  methods. 
It  is  with  the  greatest  pleasure  that  I  record  that,  with 
two  exceptions,  the  book  was  received  in  that  spirit.  Per- 
haps the  most  gratifying  thing  that  has  ever  been  said  of 
my  work  was  the  criticism  of  Professor  Lieblein  of  the 
University  of  Christiania,  who,  although  he  disagreed 
with  me  on  some  points,  which  was,  as  I  have  said,  to  be 
expected,  nevertheless  was  kind  enough  to  say  of  my 
book,    "The  author  is  a  serious  and  conscientious  scholar, 


X  PREFACE 

who,  without  having  become  partisan  in  favor  of  any  one 
more  or  less  erroneous  school,  seeks  the  truth  in  sincerity." ' 
And,  indeed,  on  the  Continent  my  book  has  everyAvhere 
met  with  the  kindest  appreciation. 

I  wish  to  record  my  thanks  and  appreciation  of  the 
letters  which  I  have  received  from  many  of  the  most 
distinguished  scholars  in  regard  to  my  former  book. 
Among  these  have  been:  Professor  C.  H.  W.  Johns  of 
Cambridge,  Professors  D.  S.  Alargoliouth  and  S.  R.  Driver 
of  Oxford,  Dr.  E.  A.  Wallis  Budge  of  the  British  ^Museum, 
Professor  x\d.  Erman  of  Berlin,  Professor  Fritz  Hommel 
of  ^Munich,  Professor  P.  Rost  of  Konigsberg  (Pr.),  Pro- 
fessor J.  A.  Knudtzon  of  Christiania,  Professor  Ernst 
Andersson  of  Upsala,  Professor  Knut  Tallqvist  of  Helsing- 
fors.  Professor  Le  P.  Ronzevalle  of  Beyrouth,  M.  F. 
Thureau-Dangin,  of  Paris,  and  Professor  C.  Fossey  of 
the  College  de  France.  I  am  especially  grateful  to 
those  of  this  number  who  have  offered  me  their  suggestions. 

Many  of  my  conclusions,  which  seemed  astonishing 
at  the  time  of  publication,  have  now  been  generally 
accepted  by  the  scholarly  world.  I  do  not  mean  to  imply 
that  it  was  entirely  because  of  my  book  that  these  conclu- 
sions have  been  reached.  I  only  state  that  scholars  have 
reached  the  same  results.  It  is  some  gratification  to  feel, 
however,  that  I  was  first  in  the  field.  For  example,  the 
date  for  Sargon  of  Akkad,  which  I  placed  ca.  2550  b.  c, 
has  since  been  placed  by  Eduard  IMcyer  at  the  same 
date.  The  eminent  Assyriologist,  ^I.  Thureau-Dangin, 
has  not  only  given,  the  same  date  for  the  Hammurabi 
Dynasty  as  I  did,  but  has  also  shown  that  there  was  a 
lacuna  between  this  and  the  Kassite  Dynasty,  and  that 

I  sphinx,  Vol.  XII,  p.  249. 


PREFACE  xi 

the  Second  Dynasty  was  partly  contemporary  with  both 
of  them,  both  of  which  conclusions  I  reached  first.  Pro- 
fessor Bennett  has  likewise  accepted  my  date  of  Ham- 
murabi. ' 

As  for  Egyptian  chronology,  Professor  Lieblein  has 
shown  that  Dynasties  VIII  and  IX  were  contemporary, 
just  as  I  asserted.  Eduard  Meyer  and  Breasted  have  both 
corrected  themselves  in  their  interpretation  of  the  Turin 
papyrus,  regarding  the  succession  and  number  of  kings? 
in  Dynasty  XI,  coming  to  practically  the  same  conclusions 
as  I.  Mr.  Griffith  has  shown  that  the  reign  of  Amen- 
hotep  II  was  very  short,  say  three  to  five  years.  I  sug- 
gested three  for  his  independent  reign. 

These  examples  may  suffice  to  show  that,  although  1 
was  working  on  independent  lines,  I  was  still,  in  my  former 
book,  well  within  the  bounds  of  legitimate  research. 

I  stated  in  my  book  that  many  of  the  dates  could 
only  be  approximated.  Later  discoveries  have  caused 
me  to  modify  my  opinions  in  regard  to  some  of  them. 
These  instances  will  be  treated  in  an  appendix  to  this 
volume. 

In  this  present  volume  I  have  refrained  from  cumber- 
ing my  text  with  multitudinous  notes  referring  to  individual 
scholars.  But  this  must  not  be  taken  as  evidence  that  I 
am  not  acquainted  with  the  literature  that  has  appeared 
on  this  subject.  The  appended  bibliography  represents 
merely  those  books  which  have  constantly  been  at  my 
hand  in  the  preparation  of  this  volume.  The  "Hibbard 
Egyptian  Library,"  which  has  been  placed  at  my  disposal, 
has  given  me  a  splendid  opportunity  to  consult  all  the  best 
works  in  all  branches  of  this  science.     I  claim  to  be 

I  Exodus  ("The  New  Century  Bible"),  p.  289. 


Xii  PREFACE 

thoroughly  cognizant  of  the  views  of  all  the  more  promi- 
nent writers  bearing  upon  this  work. 

But  sometimes  nomina  sunt  odiosa.  By  bringing  in  a 
number  of  names  of  scholars  whom  I  highly  respect  and 
by  whose  labors  I  have  greatly  profited,  but  with  whom 
I  feel  constrained  to  disagree,  some  readers  might  be  led 
to  suppose  that  I  was  criticizing  individuals.  Nothing 
could  be  more  foreign  to  my  purpose.  Like  them  I  am 
searching  for  truth,  and  this  present  work  is  merely  an 
honest  and  sincere  endeavor  to  add  something  to  our 
knowledge  of  a  very  important  subject.  If  it  be  found  that 
I  have  utterly  failed,  I  shall  feel,  nevertheless,  that  I  have 
rendered  service  to  the  cause  of  truth  by  showing  what 
can  not  be  accepted.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  this  book  con- 
tain anything  of  value,  anything  worth  considering,  I 
trust  that  the  minds  of  scholars  will  not  be  so  prejudiced 
as  to  refuse  it  their  consideration,  even  if  this  imply,  as 
the  acceptance  of  my  theories  certainly  will  imply,  a  total 
reconstruction  of  the  Evolutionary  Hypothesis  of  modem 
higher  criticism.  It  is  my  wish  that  all  might  be  ready 
and  willing  to  look  questions  such  as  are  raised  in  this 
book  [squarely  in  the  face.  Our  purpose  should  ever 
be,  not  the  support  of  any  theory,  but  solely  the  search 
for  truth.     Truth  will,  in  any  case,  prevail. 

It  may  be  surprising  to  some  of  my  readers  that  the 
Exodus  and  not  the  patriarchal  period  is  treated  first  in 
this  series.  The  reason  for  this  is  the  fact  that  the  dating 
of  the  patriarchs  depends  quite  definitely  upon  the  dating 
of  the  Exodus,  which,  therefore,  I  have  had  to  treat  first. 
The  patriarchal  period  will  be  the  subject  of  a  future 
volume. 

In  treating  of  the  Exodus,  I  have  totally  ignored  the 


PREFACE  xiii 

theory,  held  by  some  radical  critics,  that  there  never  was 
a  Hebrew  exodus  out  of  Egypt.  Although  I  certainly 
admit  that  there  was  a  land  Muzur  in  Philistia  or  southern 
Palestine,  which  is  a  great  question  by  itself,  still  there 
has  never  been  advanced  a  single  scrap  of  competent 
evidence  in  favor  of  the  theory  which  connects  the  Exodus 
with  that  land.  The  whole  hypothesis  is  a  pure  assump- 
tion, lacking  both  scientific  basis  and  common-sense. 
The  "Jerakhmeel"  theory,  which  is  an  outgrowth  of  this 
Muzur  hopothesis,  and  acording  to  which  about  two-thirds 
of  the  biblical  names  of  this  period  are  wholesale  corup- 
tions  of  the  one  word  "  Jerakhmeel,"  deserves  no  notice. 
The  corruptions  are  not  in  the  Bible,  but  rather  in  the 
mind  of  the  scientist  who  originated  the  theory.  The 
"pan-Babylonistic"  view,  which  sees  in  all  these  names 
and  events  merely  sun,  moon,  and  zodiacal  motives,  has 
also  been  deemed  unworthy  of  consideration.  The 
present  work  seeks  to  establish  the  historicity  of  the 
Exodus  out  of  Egypt.  If  that  be  established  all  the  other 
theories  disappear. 

In  discussing  the  dates  of  the  documents  I  have  paid 
no  attention  to  the  hypothesis  advanced  by  Dillmann, 
Schrader,  and  others  of  that  school,  namely  that  the 
P(riestly)  document  was  written  in  the  period  of  the  Davidic 
or  Solomonic  monarchy.  Although  this  comes  surpris- 
ingly near  the  date  which  I  have  myself  suggested,  I  have 
been  loath  to  use  the  conclusions  of  these  scholars,  because 
they  assume  that  this  document  is  the  oldest.  With  the 
Wellhausen  school  I  still  feel  constrained  to  regard  P  as 
the  latest  of  the  Hexateuchal  documents. 

Several  scholars  have  lately  revolted  against  many 
tenets  of  the  higher  criticism.     Much  of  their  feeling  and 


XIV  PREFACE 

argument  I  accept,  of  course,  but  in  no  case  have  I  been 
able  to  accept  them  in  toto.  With  Baentsch  I  agree  that 
Moses  must  have  been  a  historic  personality.  In  chaps, 
ii  and  iii  the  reader  will  find  that  my  views  often  coincide 
with  those  of  Eerdmanns,  although  in  his  reconstruction 
I  find  myself  as  far  apart  from  him  as  from  the  Wellhausen 
school.  Orr  has  certainly  rendered  great  service  to  the 
cause  of  biblical  criticism,  but  I  cannot  help  feeling  that 
he  has  underestimated,  in  several  important  particulars, 
the  critical  arguments  in  regard  to  contradictions  between 
P  and  J,  E,  and  D.  And  as  Orr  seems  unwilling  to  admit 
even  the  existence  of  independent  documents  in  the 
Hexatcuch,  of  course  I  could  not  make  any  extensive  use 
of  his  arguments.  Consequently,  agreement  between 
myself  and  Orr  or  Eerdmanns  is  limited  to  some  of  the 
negative  arguments.  In  my  reconstruction  I  dare  claim 
an  entirely  independent  line  of  thought,  both  in  regard 
to  the  documents  and  in  regard  to  the  history  of  the  period 
treated. 

Professor  Burney  of  Oxford  has  lately  argued  in  favor 
of  the  ^Mosaic  origin  of  the  Decalogue.  His  reconstruction 
of  religious  conditions  in  the  period  of  the  Judges  had  in 
substance  been  presented  by  myself  a  year  earlier,  and 
the  present  volume  is  only  an  enlargement  of  what  I  then 
presented. 

Perhaps,  too,  some  of  my  readers  may  be  surprised  to 
find  that  in  the  great  majority  of  cases  I  adopt  the  reading 
of  the  Greek  texts  in  preference  to  that  of  the  Massoretic 
Hebrew,  which  is  the  basis  of  our  English  text.  I  do  this 
because  I  have  become  convinced,  after  minute  study  of 
the  Greek  codices,  that  they  are  not  only  translations  of 
an  archetype  much  older  and  more  accurate  than  that  from 


PREFACE  XV 

which  our  text  has  been  derived,  but  also  that,  represent- 
ing, as  they  do,  manuscripts  over  five  hundred  years  older 
than  any  we  have  in  Hebrew,  they  have  escaped  centuries 
of  Massoretic  tinkering. 

What  is  here  presented  is  the  fruit  of  many  years  of 
thought  and  labor.  I  have  taken  care  not  to  present 
anything  which  has  not  a  bearing  on  the  question  of  the 
Exodus.  The  chapters  dealing  with  the  documents  are 
necessary,  as  I  think  will  be  clear,  for  a  basis  on  which 
to  study  the  Exodus  in  the  later  chapters. 

Before  closing  this  preface,  I  wish  to  thank  most  sin- 
cerely Rev.  H.  L.  Cawthorne  of  Chicago,  through  whose 
earnest  efforts  and  interest  in  this  work  I  was  enabled  to 
obtain  the  services  of  a  secretary  in  the  preparation  of 
this  volume. 

I  wish  also  to  thank  two  of  my  pupils  for  their  help. 
One  of  these,  my  secretary,  Mr.  Bernard  Iddings  Bell, 
has  had  a  large  share  in  the  preparation  of  this  volume, 
not  only  in  his  careful  work  in  taking  my  dictation  and 
preparing  the  volume  for  the  press,  but  also  in  many 
valuable  suggestions  and  helpful  criticism  which  he  has 
offered  on  questions  presented  in  the  book. 

Mr.  Walter  Blake  Williamson,  the  other  of  these  pupils, 
has  prepared  the  map,  under  my  direction,  with  a  care 
which  I  very  much  appreciate.  In  studying  this  book, 
my  readers  will,  I  believe,  find  this  map  useful. 

Again  I  take  pleasure  in  recording  my  deep  apprecia- 
tion of  the  generosity  and  the  interest  which  a  member  of 
our  Oriental  Society  has  shown  by  guaranteeing  a  large 
part  of  the  cost  of  publishing  this  volume. 

Olaf  a.  Toffteen 

Western  Theological  Seminary 
September  i,  1909 


CONTENTS 

PAGES 

Bibliography 1-7 

Abbreviations,  i;   Books,  2. 

Chapter  I.  Introduction 9-16 

Documents  of  the  Hexateuch,  9;  The  Evolutionary  Hypothesis 
10;  Critical  Results,  11;  Inspiration  of  Holy  Scriptures,  13; 
Purpose  of  the  Hexateuch,  14;  Reconsideration  of  the  Criti- 
cal Hypothesis,  15. 

Chapter  II.    The  Date  of  the  P  Document      .     .     .       17-44 

A.  Internal  Evidence,  17-42. 

I.  Geographical  Considerations,  17;  {a)  Persia,  17;  (b) 
Elam,  18;  (c)  Tirash,  18;  (d)  Gomer,  19.  II.  Chronol- 
ogical Considerations  (a)  Solar,  not  Lunar  Year  in  P,  20;' 

(b)  Hebrew,  not  Babylonian  Month  Names  in  P,  20;  (c) 
The  Hebrew,  not  the  Bablylonian  New-Year  in  P,  20; 
Note  on  the  Biblical  Calendar  Systems,  21. 

III.  The  Nature  and  Names  of  God  (a)  Elohim  in  the 
Creation  Story,  22;    (b)  Elohim  in  the  Deluge  Story,  22; 

(c)  Ancestor-Worship  at  Machpelah,  24;  (d)  El  Shaddai,  24;  - 
(e)  El  Elyon,  25. 

IV.  Religious  Institutions  (a)  The  Central  Sanctuary  of  P, 
25;    (b)  The  Pre-exilic  Sacrifices  of  P,  26;    (c)  Priests  and 

Levites  in  P,  29.  j 

V.  Historical  Determinants  of  the  Date  of  P  (c)  P  and 
Ezekiel,  30;   (5)  P  and  Deuteronomy,  31;   (c)  P  and  Josiah's 
Reforms,  32;   (i)  P  and  Hosea,  33 ;    (e)  P  and  Solomon,  33;  ; 
(/)  P  and  Saul,  33;   (^)  P  and  the  Kings  of  Edom,  34. 

VL  "Law  of  Yahweh"  a  Technical  Term  for  P  (a)  In  time 
of  Hezekiah,  35;  (b)  Josiah,  36;  (c)  Jeremiah,  37;  {d)  Isaiah, 
37;  (e)  Amos,  38;  (/)  Jehu,  39;  {g)  Jehoshaphat,  39;  (h) 
Asa,  40;   (i)  David,  40. 

B.  External  Evidence,  42-44. 

(a)  The  Elephantine  Papyri,  42;  (b)  D  Added  to  the  Com- 
piled JED,  44. 

C.  Conclusion,  44. 

Chapter  II.   Unity  and  Contents  of  the  P  Document      45-56 

I.  Fragments  and  Doublets  in  P,  45. 

II.  Change  of  Names,  47;   El  Shaddai  and  Yahweh,  47;   Abram 

and  Abraham,  48;   Jacob  and  Israel,  48. 


xviii  CONTEXTS 

PAGES 

III.  The  Four  Covenants,  49. 

IV.  The  Ten  Toledoth,  50. 

V.  The  Framework  of  the  Hexateuch,  52;    (a)  The  Toledoth 

Book,  52;   (b)  The  P  Document  Proper,  55. 

Chapter  IV.     The  Language  of  the  P  Document  .     .       57-62 

Not  the  Language  of  the  Exilic  Age,  57;   Hebrew  Dialects,  59; 
The  Dialect  of  Levi,  60. 

Chapter  V.     Conclusions  in  Regard  to  the  P  Docu- 
ment        63-64 

Early  Date  of  P,  63;    Documents  of  P,  63;   Language  of  P,  64. 
Chapter  VI.     The  Date  of  the  D  Document     .  65-88 

A.  External  Evidence,  65-69. 

Finding  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  65;  The  Reform  of 
Josiah,  67;   D  Not  Written  in  the  Time  of  Josiah,  68. 

B.  Internal  Evidence,  69-88. 

I.  D  and  Josiah's  Reform,  69;  (a)  The  Chemarim,  69; 
(b)  Hangings  for  Asherah,  70;  (c)  High-Places  of  the 
Satyrs,  70;  (d)  The  Priests  of  the  High-Places,  70;  (e) 
Molech-Worship,  70;  (/)  The  Horses  of  the  Sun,  70;  (g) 
High-Places  near  Jerusalem,  70;  (h)  The  High-Place  of 
Bethel,  70;  (i)  Worship  at  the  Tombstones  of  Bethel,  71; 
(;')  Teraphim-Worship,  71. 

II.  D  and  the  Age  of  Josiah,  71;  (a)  Canaanites  and 
Amalekites,  71;  (b)  Military  Service,  71;  (c)  Foreign 
King  in  Israel,  71;    {d)  Esau,  71;    (e)  Anakim,  72. 

III.  D  and  the  Early  History  of  Israel,  72;  (a)  .Amaziah, 
72;   (b)  Solomon,  74. 

IV.  "Lavir  of  Moses"  a  Technical  Term  for  D,  76;  {a)  In 
the  time  of  Joshua,  78;  (b)  At  Ebal,  79;  (c)  Joshua's 
Farewell,  79;  (d)  David,  80;  (e)  Jehoiada,  80;  (/) 
Hezekiah,  81;   (g)  Manasseh,  81. 

V.  D  and  the  Central  Sanctuary,  82;  No  Mention  of  Jeru- 
salem in  D,  83;   Other  Sanctuaries  Permitted,  83. 

VI.  D  and  the  Priests  the  Levites,  84. 

VII.  Finding  of  the  Document,  85;  The  Disappearance  of 
D,  85;  The  Repairs  in  the  Temple,  86;  Egyptian  Pre- 
cedents, 87. 

VIII.  Conclusion,  88. 

Chapter  VII.     The  Date  of  the  E  Document        .      .     S9-100 

I.  The  E  Code  Precedes  D,  89. 

II.  "  Law  of  Elohim  "  a  Technical  Term  for  E,  90;   In  Time  of 

Hosea,  90;   In  Time  of  Joshua,  91. 


CONTENTS  XIX 

PAGES 

III.  The  Book  of  the  Covenant,  91;  The  First  Covenant  at 
Horeb,  92;  The  First  "Tables  of  Covenant,"  95;  The 
Second  "  Tables  of  Covenant,"  97;  The  Second  Covenant 
at  Horeb,  98. 

IV.  The  Date  of  the  E  Document,  99. 

V.  Conclusion,  99. 

Chapter  VIII.    The  Unity  and  Contents  of  the  E 

Document 101-118 

I.  Unity  of  the  E  Document,  loi. 

II.  Unity  of  the  E  Code,  loi;     The  Statutes,  102;   The  Judg- 

ments, 102;    The  General  Priesthood,  103;    The  Levitical 
Priesthood,  105. 

III.  The  History  of  the  E  Code,  107;  Early  Existence,  107; 
Non-Levitical  Sacrifices,  107;  E  in  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
108. 

IV.  The  E  Code  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  no;  Patricide, 
iii;  Manstealing,  11 1;  Quarrels,  in;  Miscarriage,  211; 
''Lex  talionis,"  112;  Goring,  112;  Theft  of  Animals,  113; 
Burglary,  113;  Unlawful  Pasturage,  113;  Deposit,  114; 
Storage,  114;  Herding,  114;  Sorcery,  115;  Perjury,  115; 
Bribery,  116. 

V.  Conclusion,  117. 

Chapter  IX.    The  Relation  Between  the  E  and  D 

Documents ii9~i34 

Rebellion  at  Kadesh,  119;  The  First  Conquest,  120;  Judah, 
121;  House  of  Joseph,  122;  Rebellion  of  Dathan  and 
Abiram,  125;  The  Covenant  in  Moab,  126;  Stay  at  Gilgal, 
127;  The  Second  Conquest,  129;  Reunion  of  Joshua  and 
Caleb,  130;  War  with  Jabin,  131;  Covenant  in  Shiloh,  132; 
Conclusion,  134. 

Chapter  X.    The  Language  of  the  E  and  D  Docu- 
ments         135-136 

Language  of  E,  135;  Language  of  D,  135. 

Chapter  XL    The  J  Document 137-140 

I.  Date,  137;  IL  Unity,  137;  IIL  Language,  138;  Addenda  on 
Hebrew  Dialects,  139. 

Chapter  XII.    Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

The  Settlements  in  Egypt 142-147 

Not  Variant  Traditions,  but  Variant  Events,  142;  Reconstruction  of 
the  Text,  142;  Land  of  Goshen,  144;  Land  of  Raamses,  145. 


XX  CONTEXTS 

PAGES 

Chapter  XIII.    Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

The  Servitudes  IN  Egypt 148-152 

Building  of  Pithom  and  Raamses,  148;  Northern  Heliopolis, 
150;  The  Wilderness  East  of  the  Red  Sea,  152. 

Chapter  XIV.    Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

The  Going-out  FROM  Egypt 153-165 

I.  The  P  Route,  158;    Succoth,  158;    Wilderness  of  Etham  or 
Shur,  158;    Pi-Hahiroth,  159;    Migdol,  160;    Baal-Zephon, 
161;   The  Sea,  161. 
•':     II.  The  JED  Route,  165;   The  Red  Sea,  165. 

Chapter  XV.     Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

The  Routes  of  the  Exodus 166-168 

The  Route  .According  to  JED,  i66;  The  Route  .\ccording  to  P, 
166;   Kadesh-barnea,  166;  EUm,  167;  Zared,  167. 

Chapter   XVI.     Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

The  Length  OF  the  Wandering 169-173 

According  to  P,  169;  .According  to  JED,  170. 

Chapter  XVII.     Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

Horeb  and  Sin.41 174-177 

Horeb,  174;   Sinaij  176. 

Chapter  XVIII.    Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

The  Sets  OF  Tables -AND  THE  Arks      ....   17S-187 

I.  The  Two  Sets  of  Tables,   178;    Tables  of  Covenant,   17S: 

Tables  of  Testimony,  1 78. 

II.  The  Two  Arks,  180;   History  of  the  .\rk  of  Covenant,  iSo; 

History  of  the  Ark  of  Testimony,  182;  The  Altars  at  Gibeon 
and  Jerusalem,  183. 

Chapter  XIX.    Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

The  Legislations  at  Horeb  and  Sinai      .     .     .  188-192 

I.  Laws  of  P  Contrary  to  Laws  of  E,  188;  II.  Laws  of  P  Not 
Found  in  E,  190;  III.  Laws  of  E  Not  Found  in  P,  191; 
IV.  Similar  Laws  in  E  and  P,  191. 

Chapter  XX.     Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — 

The  Priesthoods 193-222 

Definition  of  the  Term,  193;  Moses  a  Priest  in  JED,  193;  .Aaron 
"the  Priest,"  193;  "Priest"  a  Technical  Term  in  P,  193; 
Early  History  of  the  Aaronic  Priesthood,  195;  Mustering  at 


CONTENTS  XXI 

PAGES 

Sinai,  197;  Rebellion  of  Korah,  igS;  Mustering-in  of 
Levites,  199;  The  Aaronic  Priesthood  in  Joshua  and 
Judges,  201;  The  High-Priesthood  of  Eli,  202;  The  High- 
Priests,  202;  Identity  of  Eli  and  Eleazar,  205;  Confusion  of 
Eliezer  and  Eleazar,  207;  Confusion  of  Ahimelech  and 
Abimelech,  208;  The  Priesthoods  in  the  United  Monarchy, 
210;  The  Priesthoods  in  Judah  and  Israel,  214;  Ezekiel's 
Proposed  Reform,  218;  The  Priesthood  in  Time  of  Ezra, 
219;   Summary,  220;   Note  on  the  Ephods,  221. 

Chapter  XXI.    The  Dates  of  the  Exodi      .     .     .     .223-27 

I.  The  Date  according  to  P,  223;  The  Tale  of  the  Two  Brothers, 

224;  Report  of  a  Frontier  Official,  224;  The  Israel  Stela, 
228;  Papyrus  Harris,  229;  Ramses  III,  Pharaoh  of  the 
Oppression,   233;    Ramses  IV,   Pharaoh   of    the   Exodus, 

234- 

II.  The  Date  according  to  JED,  234;    I  Kings  6:1,  234;   The 

JED  Settlement  in  Egypt,  235;  Khnumhotep  II,  236; 
Ishmaelites  Sell  Joseph,  237;  Stela  of  Sebek-khu,  237; 
Zaphenath-Paneah,  240;  Funeral  of  Jacob,  241;  Scarabs  of 
Jacob,  243;  Jacob  and  Israel,  244;  Later  Career  of  Sebek-khu, 
245;  Reign  of  the  Hyksos  Kings,  247;  Exodus  of  JED,  249; 
Hatshepsut,  249;  Thutmose  III,  Pharaoh  of  the  Oppres- 
sion, 250;  Amenhotep  II,  Pharaoh  of  the  Exodus,  250; 
The  Conquest  and  the  Amarna  Period,  253;  The  Habire, 
254;  Mut-Baal,  256;  Judge  Addi,  260;  Deborah,  265; 
The  Midianites  in  JED,  268;  Artatama  II,  269;  Cushan- 
Rishathaim,  269. 

III.  Conclusions,  270. 

Chapter  XXIL    Similarities  in  the  Two  Stories  .     .271-276 

I.  The  Intrinsic  Possibility  of  Two  Exodi,  272;   II.  The  Simi- 
larity of  the  Routes,  273;   III.  The  Similarity  of  the  Law- 
.  Givings,   273;    IV.  The  Similarities  in  the  Plagues,   274; 
V.  The  Similarity  in  the  Names  of  the  Leaders,  275. 

Chapter  XXIII.    Conclusion 277-282 

Dates  of  the  Documents,  277;  Number  of  Documents,  278; 
Differences  in  Language  and  Style,  280;  Doublets  and 
Triplets  of  Texts,  280;  Similarity  or  Divergence  in  Laws  and 
Law-Codes,  281;  Different  Historical,  Geographical,  and 
Biographical  Statements,  281;  Differences  in  Religion, 
Morals,  and  Ceremonies,  281. 


xxu  CONTENTS 

PAGES 

Appendix  I.    The  Jews  and  Their  Temple  at  Elephan- 
tine      285-293 

Bibliography,  285;  The  Euting  Papyrus,  285;  The  Assuan 
Papyri,  286;  The  Jewish  Quarter  in  Elephantine,  287; 
The  Elephantine  Papyrus,  288;  Note  on  Bagohi,  291; 
Note  on  the  Temple  at  Elephantine,  292. 

Appendix  II.    Ancient  Chronology 294-317 

Bibliography,  294;  Introduction,  297;  Biblical  Chronology-, 
299;  Chronology  of  the  Book  of  Judges,  299;  Babylonian 
Chronology,  303;  Egyptian  Chronology,  304;  Synchronistic 
Table,  308. 

Indices 319-339 

Index  of  Biblical  References,  321;  Index  of  Names  and  Subjects, 
326. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.     Abbreviations 

ARE  =  Ancient  Records  of  Egypt,  Vols.  I-V,  by  J.  H.  Breasted. 

A.  V.=  Authorized  Version. 

BA.=Beitrdge  zur  Assyriologie. 

BC.  =Biblischer  Commentar. 

BE.  =  Babylonian  Expedition  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

CBSC.=Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges. 

HAT.=Handkommentar  zum  Alten  Testament. 

HCC.=  Historical  and  Critical  Commentary. 

ICC.  =  The  International  Critical  Commentary. 

J  A .  =  Journal  asiatique. 

JBL.  =  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature. 

JHS.  —Journal  of  Hellenic  Studies. 

JQR.=  Jewish  Quarterly  Review. 

KEH.=Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Handbuch. 

KHC.=Kurzer  Hand-Commentar  zum  Alten  Testament. 

KK.=Kurzgefasster  Kommentar. 

LOT. = An  Introduction  to  ^the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  by 

S.  R.  Driver. 
LXX=Septuagint,  The  Greek  Version  of  the  Old  Testament. 
MAFC.=Memoires  publics  par  les  membres  de  la  Mission  Archeo- 

logique  Frangaise  au  Caire. 
MDOG.=Mittheilungen  der  Deutschen  Orient-Gesellschaft. 
MOS.  =Mittheilungen  aus  den  orientalischen  Sammlungen  der  Konigl 

Museen  zu  Berlin. 
MSI.=Momimenta  Sacra  Inedita,  by  C.  Tischendorf. 
MSP.=Monumenta  Sacra  et  Prof  ana,  by  A.  M.  Ceriani. 
MVG.=Mittlieilungen  der  vorderasiatischen  Gesellschaft. 
NCB.  —  The  New-Century  Bible. 
OLZ.=Orientalistische  Literatur-Zeitung. 
PEFQS.=  Palestine  Exploration  Fund,  Quarterly  Statement. 
PS B A.  =  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology. 


2  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

RAO.=Recueil  d'arcJieologle  orientale. 

RB.=  Revue  hihlique. 

RE.  =  Revue  egyptologique. 

RT.=Recueilde  travaux  relatifs  a  la  philologie  et  a  Varcheologie  egyp- 

tiennes  et  assyriennes. 
R.  V.=Revised  Version. 
SBOT.=Sacred  Books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
VAB.  =  Vorderasiatische  Bibliothek. 

WZKM.  =  Wiener  Zeitsch rift  fur  Kunde  des  Morgenlandes. 
ZA.=Zeitschriftfur  Assyriologie. 
ZA.=Zeitschriftfur  Agyptische  Sprache. 

II.     Books 

C.  A.  Briggs.  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  Holy  Scriptures. 
New  York,  1900. 

C.  Cornill.  Introduction  to  the  Canonical  Books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Eng.  transl.  by  G.  H.  Box.     London,  1907. 

S.  R.  Driver.  An  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament. 
1 2th  ed.     New  York,  1906. 

J.  G.  Eichhom.  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament.  Vols.  I-V. 
Gottingen,  1823-24. 

E.  E.  Gigot.  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures.    New  York,  1905. 

H.  A.  C.  Havernick.  General  Historico-Critical  Introduction  to  the 
Old  Testament;  Eng.  transl.  by  W.  E.  Alexander.  Edinburgh, 
1852. 

E.  Konig.     Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament.     Bonn,  1893. 

W.  M.  L.  de  Wette.  Lehrhuch  der  historisch-kritischen  Einleitung 
in  die  kanonischen  und  apokryphischen  Bucher  des  Alten  Testa- 
ments; neu  bearbeitet  von  E.  Schrader.     Berlin,  1869. 

C.  H,  H.  Wright.  A  n  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament.  New  York, 
1905. 


E.  Buhl.     Kanon  und  Text  des  Allen  Testaments.     Leipzig,  1891. 
M.  Dods.     The  Bible,  Its  Origin  and  Nature.     New  York,  1907. 
A.  K.  Fiske.     The  Jewish  Scriptures.     New  York,  1896. 


BOOKS  3 

W.  H.  Green.     General  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament;  the  Canon. 

New  York,  1905. 
H.  E.  Ryle.     The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament.     London,  1904. 


E.  Watson.     Inspiration.     London,  igo6. 


W.E.Addis.  The  Documents  of  the  Hexateuch.  Vols.  I,  IL  Lon- 
don, 1892-98. 

C.  A.  Briggs.  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch.  New  York, 
1897. 

J.  E.  Carpenter.  The  Composition  of  the  Hexateuch.  London, 
1902. 

C.  F.  Kent.  Narratives  of  the  Beginnings  of  Hebrew  History.  New 
York,  1905. 

J.  J.  Lias.     Principles  of  Biblical  Criticism.     London,  1893. 

O.  Procksch.  Das  nordhebrdische  Sagenbuch,  die  Elohimquelle. 
Leipzig,  1906. 

H.   Winckler.     Alttestamentliche    Untersuchungen.     Leipzig,    1892. 

Wellhausen,  Prologomena  to  the  History  of  Israel.     Eng.  transl.,  1885. 

.     Composition  des  Hexateuchs,  1899. 


W.  Bacher.     Die  exegetische  Terminologie  der  judischen  Traditions- 

literatur.     Leipzig,  1905. 
Bacon.     The  Triple  Tradition  of  Exodus. 
L.  W.  Batten.     The  Old  Testament  from  the  Modern  Point  of  View. 

New  York,  1901. 
C.  A.  Briggs.     The  Papal  Commission  and  the  Pentateuch.     London, 

1906. 
T.  K.  Cheyne.     Bible  Problems.     London,  1904. 

.     Traditions  and  Beliefs  of  Ancient  Israel.     London,  1907. 

J.  D.  Davis.     Genesis  and  Semitic  Tradition.     London,  1894. 

R.  B.  Girdlestone.     Deutero graphs.     Oxford,  1894. 

A.  R.  Gordon.     The  Early  Traditions  of  Genesis.     Edinburgh,  1907. 

H.  Gunkel.     The  Legends  of  Genesis.     Eng.  transl.  by  W.  H.  Carruth. 

Chicago,  1907. 
.     Schopfung  und  Chaos  in  Urzeit  und  Endzeit.     Gottingen, 

1895. 


4  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

R.  H.  Kennett.     In  Our  Tongues.     London,  1907. 

A.  F.  Kirkpatrick.  The  Divine  Library  of  the  Old  Testament. 
London,  1906. 

P.  Koch.     Die  Mythen  und  Sagen  der  Bibel.     Berlin,  1907. 

J.  E.  McFadyen.  Old  Testament  Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church. 
New  York,  1906. 

H.  Mcintosh.  Is  Christ  Infallible  and  the  Bible  True  ?  Edinburgh, 
1902. 

J.  B.  Mozley.     Ruling  Ideas  in  Early  Ages.     London,  1900. 

R.  L.  Ottley.     Aspects  of  the  Old  Testament.     London,  1904. 

H.  E.  Ryle.     The  Early  Narratives  of  Genesis.    London,  1904. 

G.  A.  Smith.  Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.    New  York,  1902. 

W.  R.  Smith.  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church.  London, 
1902. 

Studia  Biblica.     Vols.  I-IV.     Oxford,  1885-96. 

A.  W.  Vernon.     The  Religious  Value  of  the  Old  Testament-     New 

York,  1907. 

W.  L.  Baxter.     Sanctuary  and  Sacrifice:    a  Reply  to  Wellhausen. 

London,   1896. 
E.   C.   Bissell.     The  Pentateuch,   Its  Origin  and  Structure.     New 

York,    1906. 

B.  D.  Eerdmans.     AUtestamentliche  Studien,  Parts  I,  II.     Giessen, 

1908. 

W.  E.  Gladstone.  TJie  Impregnable  Rock  of  Holy  Scripture.  Phila- 
delphia, 1896. 

W.  H.  Green.  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch.  New  York, 
1903. 

.     The  Unity  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.     New  York,  1901. 

D.  S.  Margoliouth.  Lines  of  Defense  of  the  Biblical  Revelation. 
London,  1903. 

J.  M.  McMullen.     The  Supremacy  of  the  Bible.     Toronto,  1905. 

J.  Orr.     The  Bible  under  Trial.     New  York,  1907. 

.     The  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament.     New  York,  1906. 

G.  H.  Rouse.  Old  Testament  Criticism  in  New  Testament  Light, 
Philadelphia,  1905. 


BOOKS  5 

T.  K.  Abbott.     Essays  on  the  Original  Texts  of  the  Old  and  New 

Testaments.     London,  1891. 
E.  G.  Kenyon.     Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts.    London, 

1898. 
P.  de  Lagarde.    Mittheilungen,    Vols.  I-IV.     Gottingen,  1884-91. 
E.  Nestle.     Urtext  und  Ubersetzungen  der  Bibel.     Leipzig,  1897. 


B.  Baentsch.    Exodus-Leviticus-Numeri  {HAT).     Gottingen,  1903. 
W.  E,  Barnes.    Chronicles  (CBSC).     Cambridge,  1899. 
W.  H.  Bennett.    Genesis  (NCB) . 

.    Exodus  (NCB). 

.     The  Book  of  Joshua  (SBOT).    New  York,  1899. 

F.  Delitzsch.     Neuer  Commentar  uber  die  Genesis.     Leipzig,  1887. 
A.  Dillmann.     Die  Genesis  (KEH).     Leipzig,  1892. 

S.  R.  Driver.     The  Book  of  Genesis  (WC). 

.     The  Book  of  Leviticus  (SBO  T) .     New  York,  1898. 

.     Deuteronomy  (ICC).     New  York,  1906. 

J.  R.  Dummelow.     The  One-Volume  Bible  Commentary.     New  York, 
1909. 

G.  B.  Gray.    Numbers  {ICC).    New  York,  1903. 
H.  Gunkel.     Genesis  {HAT).     Gottingen,  1902. 
W.  R.  Harvey- Jellie.     Chronicles  {NCB). 

H.  Holzinger.     Genesis  {KHC).     Leipzig,  1898. 

M.  M.  Kalisch.     Genesis  {HCC).     London,  1858. 

E.  Keil.     Genesis  und  Exodus  {BC) .     Leipzig,  1878. 

A.  R.  S.  Kennedy.     Samuel  {NCB). 

A.  F.  Kirkpatrick.     Samuel,  I,  II  {CBSC).     Cambridge,  1905. 

R.  Kittel.     Die  Biicher  der  Konige  {HAT).     Gottingen,  1900. 

.     Die  Biicher  der  Chronik  {HAT).     Gottingen,  1902. 

A.    Klostermann.     Die  Biicher  Samuelis  und  der  Konige    {KK). 

Nordlingen,  1887. 
J.  J.  Lias.     Judges  {CBSC).     Cambridge,  1902. 
J.  R.  Lumby.     Kings  {CBSC).     Cambridge,  1903. 
G.  F.  Maclear.     The  Book  of  Joshua  {CBSC).     Cambridge,  1904. 
A.  H.  McNeile.     The  Book  of  Exodus  {WC) . 
G.  F.  Moore.     Judges  {ICC).     New  York,  1903. 
.     The  Book  of  Judges  {SBOT).     New  York,  1898. 


6  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

W.  Nowack.     Richter,  Ruth  und  Bikher  Samuelis  {HAT).     Got- 

tingen,  1902. 
S.  Oettli.     Das  Deuteronomium,  die  Bikher  Joshua  und  Richter  (KK) . 

Miinchen,  1893. 
H.  W.  Robinson.     Deuteronomy  and  Joshua  (NCB). 
Skinner.     Kings  (NCB). 

H.  P.  Smith.     The  Books  of  Samuel  (ICC).     New  York,  1904. 
H.  L.  Strack.     Die  Genesis  (KK).     Miinchen,  1905. 
C.  Steuernagel.     Deuteronomium  und  Joshua  {HAT).     Gottingen, 

1900. 
G.  W.  Thatcher.     Judges  and  Ruth  {NCB). 
E.  Tuch.     Commentar  iiber  die  Genesis.     Halle,  187 1. 
G.  W.  Wade.     The  Book  of  Genesis.     London,  1896. 


H.  J.  D.  Astley.     Prehistoric  Archaeology  and  the  Old  Testament. 

Edinburgh,  1908. 
L.  Benziger.     Hehrdische  Archaeologie.     Tubingen,  1907. 
H.  Brugsch.     Die  hiblischen  Sieben  Jahre  der  Hungersnoth.     Leipzig, 

1891. 

.     Vexode  et  les  monuments  egyptiens.     Leipzig,  1875. 

W.  St.  G.  Boscawen.     The  Bible  and  the  Monuments.     London,  1896. 
A.  T.  Clay.     Light  on  the  Old  Testament  from  Babel.     Philadelphia, 

1907. 

F.  Delitzsch.     Babel  and  Blbel.     Eng.  transl.     by  C.  H.  W.  Johns. 

London,  1903. 
J.  G.  Duncan.     The  Exploration  of  Egypt  and  the  Old  Testament. 
New  York,  1908. 

G.  Ebers.     Aegypten  und  die  Bikher  Moses.     Leipzig,  1868. 

E.  W.  Hengstenberg.     Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses.    Eng.  transl. 
by  R.  D.  C.  Robbins.     Edinburgh,  1845. 

D.  G.  Hogarth.     Authority  and  Archaeology.     London,  1899. 

E.  Hommel.     The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition.     London,  1897. 

A.   Jeremias.      Das   Alte   Testament  im   Lichte  des  altcn   Orients. 

Leipzig,  1906. 
R.  A.  S.  Macalister.     Bible  Side-Lights  from  the  Mound  of  Gezer. 

New  York,  1906. 


BOOKS  7 

J.   F.   McCurdy.     History,   Prophecy,   and  the  Monuments.   Vols. 

I-III.     New  York  1898-1906. 
A.    Michaelis.     A    Century    of   Archaeological    Discoveries.     Eng. 

transl.  by  Bettina.     New  York,  1908. 
W.    Nowack.     Lehrhiich    der    Hebrdischen    Archdologie.     Leipzig, 

1894. 
Th.  G.  Pinches.     The  Old  Testament  in  the  Light  of  the  Historical 

Records  and  Legends  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia.     London,  1903. 
A.  H.  Sayce.     TJie  Higher  Criticism  and  the  Verdict  of  the  Monu- 
ments.    London,  1901. 

.     Fresh  Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments.     London,  1885. 

E.    Schrader.     Die  Keilinschriften  und  das   Alte   Testament.     3te 

Auflage  von  H.  Zimmern  und  H.  Winckler.     Berlin,  1903. 
E.  Stahelin.     Israel  in  Aegypten.     Basel,  1908. 
G.  St.  Clair.     Buried  Cities  and  Bible  Countries.     London,  1892. 
Olaf  A.  Toffteen.     Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I.     Chicago,  1907. 
.     Researches    in    Assyrian     and    Babylonian    Geography, 

Part  L     Chicago,  1908. 
D.  Volter.     Aegypten  und  die  Bibel.     Leiden,  1907. 
W.  M.  L.  de  Wette.     Lehrbuch  der  Hebrdisch-judischen  Archdologie. 

Leipzig,  1 81 4. 


CHAPTER  I 

Introduction 

To  Professor  Wellhausen  belongs  the  distinction  of 
having  pointed  out  that  the  Hexateuch  is  made  up  of 
jour  great  documents,  and  subsequent  scholars  have  devel- 
oped this  hypothesis  and  have  endeavored  to  distinguish 
these  documents  more  certainly  in  the  text.  There  is  now 
a  general  agreement  among  critical  scholars  as  to  the 
extent  of  these  documents,  although  there  still  remain 
large  scope  and  variety  of  different  opinions  in  regard  to 
minor  details,  such  as  in  assigning  certain  sections  to  one 
document  or  to  another. 

Documents  of  the  Hexateuch 

Critical  scholarship  has  agreed  to  designate  these 
documents  by  the  letters  J  (Jahvistic),  E  (Elohistic),  D 
(Deuteronomic),  and  P  (Priestly). 

The  division  of  the  text  into  these  documents  is  the 
result  of  the  following  considerations : 

a)  Differences  in  vocabulary  and  style ; 

b)  Doublets  and  triplets  of  texts; 

c)  Several  divergent  or  sometimes  parallel  law-codes; 

d)  Different   historical   and  geographical  statements; 

e)  Differences  in  divine  names  and  conceptions  of 
religion,  morals,  and  ceremonies. 

The  careful  student  of  the  Old  Testament  cannot  help 
acknowledging  that  the  principles  on  which  this  Docu- 
mentary Hypothesis  is  built  are  reasonable,  and  are  not 
to  be  disregarded  by  anyone  who  desires  to  understand 


lo  INTRODUCTION 

the  sources  of  the  text.  The  process  by  which  modern 
criticism  has  reached  these  results  has  been  tedious. 
^Modifications  have  been  constantly  admitted.  And  they 
are  still  to  be  expected.  The  time  has  not  yet  come  for 
us  to  put  such  a  comparatively  new  and  important  theory 
into  a  stereotyped  form.  But  although  scholars  have 
differed  and  still  do  dift'er  on  certain  details,  it  must  at 
least  be  admitted  that  in  the  Hexateuch  we  have  several 
documents.  That  this  number  should  be  confined  to 
four  is  at  present  the  accepted  creed  of  critics.  The  cor- 
rectness of  this  limitation  is,  however,  open  to  grave  sus- 
picion. But  even  though  we  may  have  to  admit  a  larger 
number  of  documents  as  sources  of  our  text,'  still  the  text 
itself  bears  witness  that  it  is  a  compilation,  made  from 
several  sources. 

The  Evolutionary  Hypothesis 

But  modern  criticisni  has  not  been  satisfied  with  merely 
pointing  out  the  existence  of  four  great  documents  in  the 
Hexateuch.  It  has  also  undertaken  to  assert  when  these 
documents  themselves  were  written.  The  basis  for  this 
determination  has  been  sought  for  in  the  history  of  Israel, 
and  each  document  has  been  fitted  into  a  period  when 
history  might  seem  to  warrant  its  appearance.  A  docu- 
ment representing  simpler  or  more  naive  forms  of  reli- 
gion and  society  is  placed  earlier,  and  one  which  presents 
more  complex  forms  later.  The  older  Documentary 
Hypothesis  has  thus  been  modified  into  an  Evolutionary 
Hypothesis,  according  to  which  the  J  document  should 
represent  the  religious  a,nd  social  condition  of  Israel  ca. 
850-800  B.  c  ,  the  E  document  a  somewhat  later  develop- 
ment, say  ca.  800-750  b.  c,  the  D  document  the  conditions 


CRITICAL  RESULTS  II 

surrounding  the  reforms  of  Josiah,  621  b.  c,  and  the  P 
document  those  conditions  which  prevailed  under  Ezra 
and  Nehemiah  and  their  promulgation  of  the  "book  of 
the  law"  in  444  b.  c.  In  regard  to  this  last,  however, 
scholars  differ  considerably,  some  of  them  assuming  that 
at  least  the  earlier  sections  of  the  P  document,  and  others 
that  the  whole  of  it,  date  from  the  time  of  Ezekiel,  ca. 
585  B.  c,  and  that  Ezra's  law-book  represents  our  whole 
Pentateuch.  But  even  according  to  these  men,  the  whole 
Pentateuch  is  not  thought  to  have  reached  its  present  form 
before  ca.  400  b.  c.  A  few  of  the  radical  critics  have 
not  hesitated  to  assign  some  sections  of  Exodus  to 
even  as  late  as  the  Maccabean  period.'  But  these 
forget  that  the  sections  they  so  date  were  translated, 
with  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  into  the  Greek 
Septuagint,  about  one  hundred  years  before  the 
Maccabean  period,  and  that  they  are  also  to  be 
found  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch,  which  can  hardly 
be  of  a  later  date  than  432  b.  c. 

Whatever  we  may  think  about  the  dates  assigned  to 
these  documents  we  are  bound  to  recognize  as  valid  the 
principle  underlying  modern  critical  research  that  the 
Hexateuch  is  composed  of  several  documents.  This 
principle  seems  so  evidently  correct  and  so  necessary 
for  gaining  an  understanding  of  this  portion  of  the 
Scriptures  that  we  are  constrained  to  accept  it. 

Critical  Results 

But  the  conclusions  which  modern  criticism  has  reached 
by  working  on  this  principle  may  not  be  so  certain.     They 

I  See  the  earnest  protest  by  Eb.  Nestle  against  this  kind  of  reckless  criticism, 
OLZ,  1908,  pp.  240-42. 


12  INTRODUCTION 

are  summed  up,  broadly  speaking,  in  the  two  following 
statements : 

1.  The  Hexateuch  consists  of  four  great  documents, 
and  four  only,  which  documents  are  to  be  found  complete, 
if  only  scholarship  is  keen  enough  to  detect  traces  of  them, 
and  to  assign  them  to  their  respective  places.  The  use  of 
the  word  "document"  presupposes  that  we  deal  here  with 
a  complete  document,  and  not  with  mere  fragments. 
The  Documentary  Hypothesis  stands  in  contrary  position 
to  the  Fragmentary  Hypothesis,  according  to  which  the 
Pentateuch  is  composed  of  a  number  of  fragments. 

2.  These  documents  were  compiled  at  or  about  the 
times  given  above.  This  presupposes  that  the  institu- 
tions mentioned  in  these  documents  and  codes  were  codi- 
fied— perhaps  in  most  cases  came  into  existence — first 
at  the  time  when  the  particular  document  containing  them 
was  written.  The  peculiarities  of  language  in  the  docu- 
ments are  supposed  to  reflect  the  language  of  the  various 
times  in  which  they  are  alleged  to  have  been  written. 

By  means  of  these  documents  and  their  alleged  dates 
the  critical  hypothesis  ordinarily  undertakes  to  explain 
the  apparent  difficulties,  inconsistencies,  contradictions, 
and  peculiarities  which  are  supposed  to  exist  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch. There  were  different  traditions,  say  the  critics 
as  a  rule,  lying  back  of  and  leading  up  to  the  peculiar 
statements  found  in  each  document.  When  a  tradition, 
institution,  or  law,  promulgated  in  a  later  document,  is 
unknown  to  an  earlier  document,  we  must  assume,  say 
the  critics,  that  such  a  particular  tradition,  institution,  or 
law  has  arisen  after  the  earlier  document  was  compiled. 
In  regard  to  religious,  civil,  and  social  institutions,  we 
must  also  assume,  so  they  say,  that  those  mentioned  only 


INSPIRATION  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURES  13 

in  a  later  document  and  not  in  previous  documents,  per- 
haps even  contrary  to  those  mentioned  before,  must  have 
been  instituted  after  the  preceding  documents  were  com- 
posed. 

The  Documentary  Hypothesis  places  thus  vividly  before 
us  the  apparent  discrepancies  in  the  different  documents 
and  gives  some  explanation  thereof,  however  unsatisfac- 
tory such  explanation  may  prove  to  be;  but  it  does  not 
remove  the  difficulties,  contradictions,  or  inconsistencies 
which  seemingly  do  exist.  It  is  therefore  no  wonder  that 
many  devout  persons  who  wish  to  retain  a  beHef  in  the 
inspiration  and  the  integrity  of  Holy  Scripture  are  slow 
to  accept  the  results  of  modern  criticism.  For  its  main 
feature  seems  to  be  a  focusing  of  attention  upon  inconsis- 
tencies already  quite  prominent  enough  to  the  adherent 
of  the  older  method,  who  looks  on  the  Hexateuch,  or  at 
least  the  Pentateuch,  as  one  continuous  document. 

Inspiration  of  Holy  Scriptures 

Now,  it  is  to  be  admitted  that,  even  though  inconsisten- 
cies and  contradictions  may  exist  in  Holy  Writ,  that  fact 
does  not  nullify  its  inspiration.  For  inspiration  is  the 
self-revelation  of  God  through  the  Holy  Ghost  to  man, 
and  Holy  Writ  is  the  record  of  that  self-revelation.  The 
fact  of  that  self-revelation  in  itself,  even  though  errors  in 
detail  may  have  crept  into  the  record  thereof,  is  evident 
in  the  Hexateuch,  even  as  modern  scholars  conceive  it, 
and  this  fact  alone  is  amply  sufficient  to  establish  the  truth 
of  its  inspiration.  Supposed  errors  in  the  Hexateuch  are 
not  necessarily  to  be  attributed  to  an  erroneous  revelation, 
but  should  be  attributed,  rather,  to  other  causes.  The 
man  or  agent  to  whom  a  revelation  was  originally  made 


14  INTRODUCTION 

may,  we  have  every  right  to  beHeve,  have  received  and  re- 
corded it  correctly.  But  a  revelation  may  have  been  made 
to  two  or  more  individuals,  and  the  resulting  accounts 
may  have  been  colored  by  their  respective  viewpoints  and 
various  modes  of  expression.  It  is  not  contrary  to  any 
orthodox  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  Plenary  Inspiration  to 
admit  the  human  factor  in  the  composition  of  Holy  Writ. 
In  later  periods,  too,  when  the  various  documents  of  an 
earlier  age  came  to  be  incorporated  into  one,  it  is  but 
natural  that  the  lapse  of  centuries  should  have  caused 
more  or  less  confusion.  Records  of  different  events  which 
were  similar  may  easily  have  been  regarded  as  but  differ- 
ent accounts  of  the  same  event.  Conversely,  different 
accounts  of  a  single  event  may  have  become  so  separated 
as  to  have  been  regarded  as  records  of  distinct  events. 
All  this  is  natural,  indeed  inevitable,  if  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  compiled,  under  the  inspiration  of 
God  the  Holy  Ghost,  solely  for  the  purpose  of  recording 
God's  revelation  of  himself. 

Purpose  of  the  Hexateuch 

Now,  the  Hexateuch  in  its  present  form  bears  on  its 
face  the  evidences  of  having  been  compiled  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  recording  God's  dealings  with  man.  It  does 
not  assume  to  be  a  treatise  on  history,  geography,  biog- 
raphy, or  any  other  science.  We  cannot,  therefore,  expect 
to  find  in  it  exact  scientific  terminology  and  method.  A 
historical  and  geographical  misunderstanding  in  our 
Hexateuch  may  thus  be  admitted,  where  the  avowed  pur- 
pose is  solely  to  record  the  transactions  which  have  hap- 
pened between  God  and  man.' 

I  Torah,  the  Hebrew  term  for  the  Pentateuch,  means  originally  "teaching," 
that  is,  par  excellence,  the  teaching  of  God's  self-revelation  to  man,  as  recorded 
in  that  book. 


RECONSIDERATION  OF  THE  CRITICAL  HYPOTHESIS      15 

Still,  however,  after  having  admitted  these  necessary 
definitions  of  the  scope  and  purpose  of  the  Hexateuch, 
readers  of  the  Bible  will  wonder  why,  in  a  self-revelation 
of  God  and  of  his  transactions  with  man,  there  should 
have  been  so  little  of  historical  and  geographical  correct- 
ness as  modern  critics  apparently  would  have  us  believe. 
Conservative  readers  are  beginning  to  wonder  if  there 
may  not  be  some  scientific  and  historical  hypothesis  by 
which  more  of  historic  fact  may  be  admitted  in  the  Bible 
than  most  modern  students  assume. 

Reconsideration  of  the  Critical  Hypothesis 

There  is  the  possibility  that  the  results  reached  by 
modern  criticism  on  the  general  principle  of  the  evolu- 
tionary theory  are  not  legitimate.  And  surely  the  time 
has  not  yet  come  when  that  theory  and  its  alleged  results 
are  so  certain  that  they  can  be  put  into  stereotyped  form. 
That  they  can  be  so  put  is  a  delusion  into  which  many  of 
the  most  distinguished  of  modern  scholars  seem  to  have 
fallen.  The  theory  is  of  comparatively  recent  date;  and 
the  divergent  opinions  of  almost  all  the  critical  scholars 
on  a  very  large  number  of  points  are  not  especially  reas- 
suring to  us,  and  do  not  give  us  perfect  confidence  that 
all  questions  in  regard  to  the  Hexateuch  have  been  for- 
ever settled.  It  may  be  claimed,  and  with  much  truth, 
that  these  differences  are  now  confined  to  only  the  minor 
details,  but  some  of  the  details  on  which  differences  of 
opinion  still  exist  are  so  important  that  the  whole  fabric 
of  the  modern  critical  structure  is  affected  thereby. 

This  assumption  of  perfect  certainty  on  the  part  of 
some  critics  is  especially  to  be  deplored  when  we  consider 
the  fact  that  our  present  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and 


i6  INTRODUCTION 

kindred  languages,  in  which  the  Old  Testament  was 
originally  written,  is  as  yet  very  imperfect,  and  is  growing, 
in  fact,  with  each  passing  day,  and  when  we  remember 
further  that  all  of  our  lower  or  textual  criticism  has  not 
as  yet  enabled  us  to  determine  what  really  was  the  original 
text  of  these  Hebrew  scriptures. 

At  any  rate,  the  time  is  not  yet  past  for  further  inquiry 
into  the  alleged  results  of  the  Evolutionary  Hypothesis. 
Are  there  only  jour  documents  in  the  Hexateuch?  Can 
these  documents  have  been  written  at  the  times  which 
modern  criticism  generally  postulates  for  them?  Is  there 
no  hypothesis  which  will  enable  us  to  believe  that  the  docu- 
ments are  themselves  historical,  and  that  they  were  written 
at  the  time  they  themselves  seem  to  imply  ?  In  attempting 
to  answer  these  questions,  let  us  begin  with  the  P  docu- 
ment and  code. 


CHAPTER  II 
The  Date  of  the  P  Document 

Although  some  critics  are  wiUing  to  date  the  P  docu- 
ment as  far  back  as  585  b.  c,  most  of  them  are  incHned 
to  date  it  444  b.  c.  They  do  this  because,  so  they  say, 
the  institutions  and  the  rehgious  ideas  therein  set  forth 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  history  of  the  children  of  Israel 
up  to  that  time.  If  this  be  so,  we  must  expect  that  the 
geography  set  forth  in  P  will  be  the  geography  known  at 
that  time.  If  history  or  chronology  is  dealt  with,  it  must 
be  the  history  or  chronology  known  at  that  time.  If  there 
are  intimations  of  the  character  of  God,  or  of  religion,  or  of 
religious  institutions,  these  must  all  be  such  as  would  be 
natural  to  those  living  at  that  time.  Let  us  examine  the 
biblical  records,  and  test  the  P  document  and  code  from 
these  standpoints,  to  see  whether  or  not  the  facts  substan- 
tiate the  theory. 

This  evidence  we  will  divide  for  convenience  into  two 
sorts:   internal  evidence,  and  external  evidence. 

A.     INTERNAL  EVIDENCE 
I.     Geographical  Considerations 

a)  It  seems  quite  impossible  that  a  man  in  the  time  of 
Ezra  (444  B.  c),  or  more  especially  Ezra  himself,  if  he 
were  the  author  of  the  P  document,  could  have  written 
a  table  of  nations,'  particularly  one  of  the  Aryan  nations," 
without  mentioning  the  Persians,  who  were  in  his  day  rulers 
of  Asia.     It  is  to  be  remembered  that  Ezra  himself  stood 

I  Gen.,  chap.  lo.  ^  Gen.  10:2-5. 

17 


1 8  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

in  special  favor  with  the  Persian  king,  that  Nehemiah, 
his  associate,  was  a  special  ambassador  from  the  Persian 
court,  and  that  they  had  the  support  of  that  court  in  the 
reforms  which  they  carried  out.  The  document  mentions 
Media  and  Ionia,"  which  were  at  this  time  merely  subject 
nations  to  the  Persians.  Now  the  Persians  appear  on  the 
Assyrian  inscriptions  as  early  as  837  B.  c.,^  and  it  seems 
improbable,  therefore,  that  this  document  should  have 
been  of  a  much  later  date.  For  if  the  author  knew  of 
Media,  which  was  farther  away,  why  should  he  not  have 
mentioned  Persia,  which  lay  near  his  own  land  ? 

b)  In  Gen.  10:22  Elam  is  described  as  a  son  of  Shem. 
But  in  the  time  of  Ezra  every  Jew  living  in  Babylonia  knew 
that  the  Elamites  were  not  related  to  the  Semites,  either 
ethnically,  geographically,  or  politically.  The  latest 
discoveries  in  Susa  have  shown,  however,  that  prior  to 
the  Hammurabi  Dynasty  a  Semitic  people  lived  in  Elam 
and  Semitic  governors  ruled  in  Susa,  the  capital  of  Elam. 
We  must  then  have  here  a  document,  or  a  fragment  em- 
bodied in  the  P  document,  which  goes  back  to  a  time  when 
the  relations  between  the  Semites  and  the  Semitic  inhabi- 
tants of  Elam  were  real,  or  at  least  well  known. 

c)  In  Gen.  10:2-5  one  of  the  sons  of  Japheth  is  called 
Tirash.  He  is  undoubtedly  identical  with  a  people  called 
Teresh,  who  appear  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  in  com- 
pany with  the  Philistines  when  they  invaded  Palestine 
ca.  1 180  B.  c.  Shortly  after  this  the  name  disappears  from 
these  monuments.     We  are  inclined  to  identify  this  Teresh, 

■  Javan. 

'mat  Par-su-a,  Shalmancser  II,  Annals,  II.  120  bis.  172,  173  bis,  185. 
This  people  had  at  this  time  a  large  number  of  fortified  cities,  and  twenty- 
seven  city-kings  of  theirs  are  mentioned.  This  presupposes  that  at  that  time 
the  northern  Persia  had  already  been  settled  for  a  long  period. 


GEOGRAPHICAL  CONSIDERATIONS  19 

not  only  with  the  biblical  Tirash,  but  also  with  the  Etrus- 
can people  of  Italy.  Now,  the  Etruscan  migration  into 
Italy  can  hardly  be  placed  later  than  iioo  B.C.  This 
accounts  for  its  total  disappearance,  both  from  the  monu- 
ments of  Egypt  and  from  the  narratives  of  the  Bible. 
After  IIOO  b.  c.  the  Hebrew  people  did  not  come  into 
contact  with  this  nation,  and  consequently  could  not  have 
known  of  it.  At  least  this  portion  of  the  P  document 
must  depend  upon  a  written  document  which  is  not  later 
in  origin,  or  at  least  not  very  much  later,  than  this  date. 
d)  In  Gen.  10: 2  we  find  a  mention  of  Gomer,  which  of 
course  is  a  name  for  what  are  generally  known  as  the 
Cimerian  people.  The  Assyrian  for  them  is  Gimirrai. 
Now  these  people  appear  first  on  the  Assyrian  monuments 
in  the  Sargon  period,  i.e.,  ca.  720  b.  c.  Assyriologists 
have  assumed,  since  they  have  their  first  Assyrian  mention 
at  this  date,  that  therefore  the  P  document  with  its  men- 
tion of  them  cannot  possibly  have  been  written  before 
this  time.  Modern  critics  have  seemed  inclined  to  agree 
with  them  in  this.  This  custom  of  dating  a  biblical  docu- 
ment by  the  mere  mention  of  a  geographical  name  on  an 
Assyrian  monument  is  very  precarious.  This  is  especially 
true  in  this  case,  for  the  political  horizon  of  the  Assyrians 
up  to  the  time  of  Sargon  was  very  narrow  indeed,  and 
there  was  no  occasion  for  them  to  mention  the  Gimirrai 
before  his  time.  That  the  people  were  known  before  his 
time  is  seen  from  Homer's  Odyssey,  where  we  are  told  that 
Odysseus,  fleeing  from  Troy,  visited  the  Cimerians.  It 
does  not  matter  much  when  the  Odyssey  was  actually 
composed.  The  tradition  embodied  in  it  affirms  the 
existence  of  the  Cimerians  on  the  horizon  of  the  Greek 
peoples  as  early  as  the  Fall  of  Troy,  11 83  B.C.     Thus 


20  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

Gomer  was  known  in  Palestine  at  the  same  time  that 
Tirash,  mentioned  above,  was  known  there.  And  this 
is  the  very  time  when  the  entrance  of  the  Aryan  race  into 
Asiatic  politics  commenced  to  cause  immense  upheavals 
there. ' 

II.     Chronological  Considerations 

a)  In  Gen.  7 :  24;  8: 3,  4  are  references  to  the  solar  year 
(150  days,  equal  to  five  months  of  thirty  days  each).  In 
the  exilic  and  post-exilic  periods  the  Jews  used  Babylonian 
chronology,  based  on  the  lunar  year.  The  use  of  the  solar 
year  must  have  ended  before  the  Exile.  The  date  of 
the  P  document  must  then  be  earlier  than  587  b.  c,  when 
the  Exile  and  the  change  in  the  chronological  system 
commenced. 

b)  If  the  P  document  and  code  were  composed  in  the 
exilic  or  post-exilic  period  we  should  expect  that  it  would 
use  the  names  of  months  that  then  were  usual,  namely 
the  Babylonian  month  names,  such  as  Nisan,  Ijjar,  Sivan, 
etc.  But  the  P  document  does  not  give  us  one  instance 
of  the  use  of  these  Babylonian  names.  It  has  a  system 
of  its  own.  It  refers  to  the  months  as  the  first,  the  second, 
the  third,  etc.  Now,  we  find  that  this  same  system  was 
in  vogue  as  early  as  the  establishment  of  the  monarchy. 
It  is  utterly  inconceivable,  if  its  origin  was  exilic  or  post- 
exilic,  that  P  should  show  no  trace  of  the  use  of  the  Baby- 
lonian system. 

c)  And  further,  it  is  assumed,  or  claimed  at  least,  that 
the  author  of  P  had  accepted  and  reckoned  by  the  Babylo- 
nian custom  of  beginning  the  civic  year  in  the  spring  instead 
of  in  the  autumn  and  that  this  custom  was  introduced 
among  the  Jews  in  the  exilic  period.     But  if  this  be  true 

I  Toffteen,  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  p.  209. 


CHRONOLOGICAL  CONSIDERATIONS  21 

the  utter  absence  of  Babylonian  month  names  in  P  becomes 
still  more  difficult  to  explain.  Further,  the  Holiness 
Code, '  which  is  a  part  of  P,  contains  the  law  on  the  Feast 
of  Trumpets,  which  was  celebrated,  as  we  know,  at  the 
autumnal  equinox.  We  know  also  that  it  was  a  celebra- 
tion of  a  Hebrew  new  year.  It  seems,  therefore,  very 
singular  that  we  should  here  have  a  law  promulgated 
under  the  Exile  or  afterward,  establishing  a  new-year 
festival  in  the  autumn,  when  in  fact  everyone,  including 
the  promulgators,  began  the  year  in  the  spring — and  this 
without  a  single  reference  to  the  Babylonian  calendar,  then 
universally  observed  among  the  Jews.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  the  unprejudiced  mind  can  hardly  help  assuming 
that  this  law,  at  least,  was  written  and  promulgated  at  a 
time  when  the  Hebrew  year  began  in  the  autumn,  i.  e., 
long  before  the  Exile.  ^ 

1  Lev.  23:24,  25;  cf.  Num.  29:1-6  (P). 

2  The  Old  Testament  knows  of  and  uses  four  calendar  systems: 

a)  The  Canaanitic  calendar,  in  which  the  word  for  month  is  yerakh 
(  =  29^  days),  and  has  a  lunar  year  of  354  days.  Only  three  of  the  month 
names  are  known  in  the  Bible,  Ziv,  Ethanim,  and  Bid;  but  the  Phoenician 
inscriptions  have  added  seven  other  names  of  months.  This  system  was 
adopted  by  the  early  Hebrew  settlers  in  Canaan,  and  was  still  the  ofl&cial  calendar 
in  the  time  of  Solomon  (I  Kings,  chaps.  6-8.) 

In  the  Deluge  story  is  a  trace  of  this  system.  Thus,  if  we  compare  Gen. 
7:11  with  8:4  Noah  stayed  in  the  ark  one  year  and  ten  days,  according  to  the 
Hebrew  text,  but  an  even  year  according  to  the  Greek  text.  These  ten  days 
mark  the  difference  between  the  Canaanitic  and  the  Eg)'ptian  years.  The  two 
texts  do,  therefore,  really  agree,  indicating  that  Noah  stayed  in  the  ark  a  full 
year  of  365  days. 

h)  The  Egyptian  calendar,  in  which  the  word  for  month  is  khodesh, 
(  =  30  days).  It  was  a  solar  year,  consisting  of  5  intercalary  days  and  12  months, 
each  of  30  days,  making  a  year  of  even  365  days.  The  months  are  therefore 
moveable.  Only  one  month  name  is  known  in  the  Old  Testament — Ahib, 
corresponding  to  the  Egyptian  Epiphi.  This  system  underlies  the  JED 
codes  (Exod.  23:16  [E];  34:22  [J];  Deut.  16:13-16  [D]).  The  word,  "end 
of  year"  (Exod.  23:16  [E];  "revolution  of  year,"  Exod.  34:22  [J])  should  be 
translated,  "beginning  of  year,"  because  the  word  yazah,  "to  go  out,"  is  the 


22  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

III.     The  Nature  and  the  Names  of  God 

a)  In  444  b.  c.  no  pious  Jew  could  have  written  Gen. 
1:26,  which  is  plainly  polytheistic.  "Let  us  make  man 
in  our  image"  certainly  implies  a  recognition  of  more  than 
one  God. 

b)  A  strict  monotheistic  Jew,  such  as  that  of  the  time 
of  Ezra,  could  not  have  written  Gen.  5:22,  24  and  6:9, 
where  Enoch  and  Noah  "walked  with  Elohim,"  i.  e., 
"had  dealings  with  Elohim,"  because  the  language  here 
used  is  as  anthropomorphic  as  in  any  J  story  in  the 
Pentateuch. 

Even  though  we  admit  that  the  compiler  of  P  depended 
on  earlier  traditions  which  made  use  of  such  expressions 
as  these,  we  cannot  admit  that  he  would  consent  to  pro- 
mulgate views  so  radically  different  from  his  own.     A  man 

technical  term  for  the  beginning  of  some  definite  period  of  time.  It  was  origi- 
nally applied  to  the  sun-god  going  out  from  his  bridal  chamber  in  the  morning, 
1.  e.,  of  the  dawn  (Ps.  19:4-6).  It  is  therefore  a  calendaric  term,  and  should 
be  understood  here  in  this  technical  sense.  When  the  Hebrews  adopted  this 
system,  the  civil  new  year  was  celebrated  in  the  fall.  The  "feast  of  ingather- 
ing" (later  "feast  of  tabernacles")  was  therefore,  originally,  a  new-year  festival. 

c)  The  Hebrew  calendar,  in  which  the  word  for  month  is  khodesh  (30  or 
31  days).  It  was  a  solar  year  of  365  days,  beginning  with  the  vernal  equinox, 
and  distinguished  the  months  by  numbering  them.  This  system  is  used 
in  P.  When  this  system  was  introduced  (Num.,  chaps.  28,  29;  Lev.,  chap.  23), 
the  autumnal  equinox  came  15  days  before  the  New-years'  Day  of  the  Egyptian 
calendar  then  used;  and  a  new  feast — that  of  trumpets — was  introduced  to 
mark  the  beginning  of  the  civil  year,  while  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles  ("ingather- 
ing") was  kept  as  a  survival  of  the  old  Egyptian  New-year's  festival.  The 
New-year's  Day  of  the  Hebrew  or  P  system  was  celebrated  at  the  vernal  equinox 
and  came  to  mark  the  beginning  of  the  ecclesiastical  year. 

d)  The  Babylonian  calendar.  It  had  a  lunar  year  of  12  months,  and  an 
intercalary  month.  Each  month  had  a  separate  name,  like  Nisan,  Sivan, 
Elul,  etc.  The  year  began  at  the  vernal  equinox,  and  was  introduced  among 
the  Hebrews  in  the  exilic  and  post-exilic  periods.  This  system  is  known, 
therefore,  in  Zechariah,  Nehemiah,  Ezra,  Esther,  and  the  Apocrypha.  Not 
a  trace  of  this  system  is  found  in  P,  or  in  any  other  document  of  the 
Hexateuch. 


THE  NATURE  AND  THE  NAMES  OF  GOD      23 

who  wrote  the  history  of  God's  dealings  with  man  after 
the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel  had  been 
proclaimed,  would  certainly  have  adapted  his  traditional 
material  to  suit  the  religious  beliefs  of  his  time. 

It  is  assumed  that  the  author  of  P  is  a  strict  monotheist, 
to  whom  God  is  the  exalted,  supra-mundane  being,  of 
whom  all  anthropomorphic  expressions  are  unworthy. 
We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  Gen.  i :  26 
uses  Elohim  in  a  polytheistic  sense.  We  are  willing  to 
admit  that  possibly  some  Trinity-idea'  may  lie  behind  it, 
but  even  this  idea  is  utterly  foreign  to  the  time  of  Ezra. 
The  same  use  of  Elohim  in  a  plural  sense  occurs,  either 
explicitly  or  implicitly,  in  Gen.  6:13  and  9 :  16.  And  with 
these  we  should  compare  the  Jahvistic  sections  of  Gen. 
3:22  and  11:7.  We  cannot  be  very  much  mistaken  if 
we  say  that  in  the  earlier  sections  of  Genesis  the  biblical 
Elohim  often  approaches  the  Babylonian  expression, 
Ildni-Rabuti,  "the  great  gods."  This  becomes  still  more 
apparent  when  we  refer  to  the  expression  Yahweh  Elohim 
in  Gen.,  chaps.  2  and  3,  which  can  hardly  mean  anything 
else  than  "Yahweh  of  the  Gods,"  or  "Lord  of  the  Gods." 
And  this  expression  occurs  again  and  again  throughout 
Genesis,  in  both  J  and  P  sections,  at  least  if  we  may  rely 
upon  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  Septuagint. 

We  have  also  called  attention  to  Gen.  5:22,  24,  and 
6:9,  where  Enoch  and  Noah  are  said  to  have  transacted 
business  with  Elohim.  The  anthropomorphism  of  these 
expressions  is  so  evident  that  it  is  hard  to  see  any  difference 
between  P  and  J,  the  document  which  critics  claim  is 
the  most  anthropomorphic  of  all.     Similar  ideas  meet 

I  Like  the  Babylonian  Anu,  Bel,  and  Ae;  or  the  Greek  Zeus,  Poseidon,  and 
Hades;   Vedic  Brahma,  Vishnu,  and  Shiva;  Icelandic  Odin,  Vilir,  and  Vei. 


24  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

US  once  more  in  P  expressions,  when  God  is  said  to  ''arise" 
from  Abraham  and  Jacob.' 

c)  Still  more  significant  are  the  references  to  the  cave 
of  Machpelah,  which  contained  the  tombs  of  the  patri- 
archs.^ The  patriarchs  are  said  to  be  "gathered  to  their 
fathers"  when  they  die,  and  this  presupposes  some  sur- 
vival of  ancestor-worship. 

But  waiving  for  the  present  the  question  of  the  date  of 
the  composition  of  P,  we  must  at  least  admit  that  P  con- 
stantly uses  material  dating  from  a  time  when  the  strict 
monotheism  of  the  exilic  and  post-exilic  periods  was 
unknown. 

d)  In  view  of  the  religious  beliefs  prevailing  in  the  time 
of  Ezekiel  and  from  then  on  down  to  that  of  Ezra,  it  does 
not  seem  probable,  in  fact  it  seems  quite  impossible,  that 
a  document  should  be  put  forth  by  men,  both  priests  and 
prophets,  very  zealous  in  their  worship,  which  promulgates 
the  worship  of  El-Shaddai.  It  is  also  almost  incredible 
that  it  should  have  been  received  by  a  people  which  had 
been  so  severely  chastened  in  the  Exile.  We  cannot  deny 
that  this  name  was  an  epithet  for  Yahweh;  but  the  true 
God  is  here  presented  to  the  people  in  a  local  aspect.^  In 
referring  to  God  as  El-Shaddai  the  author  of  P  has  identi- 
fied him  with  a  local  divinity.  This  is  impossible  for 
Ezra's  time,  for  the  henotheistic  conception  certainly  did 

1  Gen.  17:22;  35:13. 

2  Gen.  25:8,9;  49:29-32;  50:12-13. 

3  The  name  came  from  northern  Syria.  The  same  god  was  introduced 
into  the  Egyptian  pantheon  under  the  name  of  Set  or  Sed,  which  should  prob- 
ably be  pronounced  Saddai.  The  center  of  this  worship  was  in  Tanis  and 
Avaris,  and  the  god's  totem  was  the  ass,  which  connects  him  with  the  worship 
of  Hadad  of  the  Amurru  or  Amorite  people  of  Syria,  the  Amorite  name  itself 
being  the  older  Canaanite  name  of  Chamor  or  "he-ass." 


RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  25 

not  last  longer  than  to  the  great  prophets  of  the  eighth 
century. 

e)  There  is  another  similar  name  used  in  P,  in  Gen., 
chap.  14,  where  Melchizedek  is  said  to  worship  El-Elyon, 
who  is  the  local  God  of  Salem,'  and  the  religion  is  certainly 
sanctioned  and  considered  perfectly  proper,  for  Abraham 
receives  a  blessing  from  him. 

Thus  in  certain  sections  of  P  we  find  the  religious  views 
entirely  dissonant  with  the  theology  of  Ezra  or  Ezekiel. 
Sometimes  God  is  looked  at  in  a  polytheistic  or  at  least, 
possibly,  a  trinitarian  way.  In  other  cases  he  is  worshiped 
as  a  henotheistic  or  local  god,  under  special  and  local 
names.  In  still  other  cases,  the  document  acquiesces  in 
ancestor-worship,  and  in  other  peculiar  forms  of  worship, 
as,  for  instance,  when  it  introduces  the  rite  of  circumcision. 
These  sections  of  the  document  must  antedate  the  period 
of  the  great  prophets. 

IV.     Religious  Institutions 

a)  It  is  assumed  by  modern  critics  that  the  D  docu- 
ment is  the  one  which  introduces  the  central  sanctuary, 
and  that,  although  the  P  document  and  code  do  not  men- 
tion such  a  sanctuary,  they  do  presuppose  it.  Ergo,  say 
the  critics,  the  P  document  is  later  than  D.  It  is  to  be 
deplored  that  critical  research  undertakes  to  read  so  much 
into  the  Bible  that  never  was  there.  If  the  P  document 
or  code  does  not  mention  a  single  central  sanctuary,  we 
should  not  attribute  to  it  any  such  institution  unless  we 
have  further  evidence.  If  the  document  does  not  mention 
it,  it  may  be  supposed  that  quite  possibly  it  neither  knew 
of  it  nor  intended  to  refer  to  it. 

I  Gen.  14:18. 


26  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

On  closer  examination  of  the  P  code,  though,  we  find 
that  it  both  knows  of  and  acquiesces  in  more  than  one 
sanctuary.'  Now,  the  P  code  was  written  in  the  wilder- 
ness of  Sinai,  if  we  may  believe  its  own  statements,  and 
there,  of  course,  the  people  had  only  one  sanctuary,  the 
Tent  of  Meeting.  In  it,  therefore,  we  could  hardly 
expect  references  to  more  than  one  sanctuary.  But  the 
passage  just  alluded  to  implies  that  in  the  future  more  than 
one  sanctuary  was  to  be  expected.  But  such  a  thought 
as  this  would  be  entirely  impossible  in  the  time  of  Ezra, 
or  even  in  the  time  of  Ezekiel. 

In  Ps.  43 : 3 ;  46 : 4,  and  84 :  i  ^  are  references  to  several 
"dwellmg-places  of  Yahweh."  The  word  for  "dwelling- 
place"  is  purely  a  P  expression.  But  the  tone  of  the 
references  makes  it  necessary  to  believe  that  in  the  time 
they  were  written  more  than  one  sanctuary  was  not  only 
permitted  but  extolled.  Incidentally,  too,  it  may  be 
remarked  that  none  of  these  psalms  can  possibly  be 
assigned,  on  this  account,  to  a  post-exilic  date. 
f?-';  b)  In  assigning  the  P  document  and  code  modern 
criticism  has  given  as  its  reasons  the  statement  that  the 
characteristic  institutions  of  this  code  are  not  known  to 
the  history  of  Israel  until  the  time  of  Ezra.  References 
to  such  institutions  in  the  poetical  books  are  explained 
by  the  assumption  that  such  books  belong  to  the  exilic 
or  post-exilic  periods.  The  chief  trouble  with  this  hypoth- 
esis is  the  fact  that  after  the  time  of  Ezra  Hebrew  history 
becomes  a  blank.  We  know  almost  nothing  about  it. 
Consequently  it  can  quite  easily  be  claimed,  though  even 
more  easily  denied,  that  several  of  these  P  institutions 
were  never  put  into  effect,  and  that  they  represent  merely 

■  Lev.  26:31;  cf.  Ps.  68:35.  5  Cf.  Ps.  132:5. 


RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  27 

the  pious  hopes  of  the  poverty-stricken  priests  of  Jerusa- 
lem, hopes  which  were  never  to  be  realized. 

The  case  is,  however,  not  so  clear  as,  on  a  first  glance, 
it  might  appear  to  be.  The  preceding  history  of  Israel 
is  not,  as  is  claimed,  entirely  free  from  reference  to  these 
P  institutions.  On  the  other  hand,  we  could  hardly 
expect  that  some  of  them  should  be  so  mentioned.  Much 
weight  is  attached  to  the  fact  that  the  institutions,  so  promi- 
nent in  P,  of  the  sin-offering,  the  meal-  and  peace-offer- 
ings, and  the  thank-offerings,  although  so  prominently 
featured  in  Leviticus,'  are  not  referred  to  in  the  historical 
books.  It  is  claimed  that  these  sacrifices  could  not  have 
been  in  existence  in  the  time  of  these  books.  But  it  must 
be  observed  in  this  connection  that  the  laws  on  these 
sacrifices  in  P  were  made  for  private  cases.  They  are  all 
private  sacrifices.  Even  the  law  in  Leviticus  on  the 
holocaust,^  refers  to  a  private  sacrifice.  They  provide 
for  an  individual  making  a  sacrifice,  not  for  a  people. 
And  therefore  we  ought  not  to  expect  that  these  sacrifices 
should  be  mentioned  in  the  historical  books.  There  were 
other  sacrifices  of  a  public  nature,  and  the  law  for  them  is 
to  be  found  in  Num.,  chap.  28.  In  this  place  the  P  code 
confines  itself  to  the  holocaust,  with  regulations  as  to 
offering  it  on  every  week-day,  on  the  Sabbath,  and  on 
the  new-moons.  The  offering  of  public  holocausts  is, 
however,  not  unknown  to  the  earlier  history  of  Israel, 
which  refers  frequently  both  to  public  holocausts  and  to 
public  peace-offerings.  Deuteronomy  also  legislates  about 
these  two  sacrifices.  Isaiah  knows  not  only  of  the  great 
feasts,^  but  also  of  oblations,  incense,  new-moons,  solemn 
convocations,  and  calling  of  assemblies,^  all  of  them  P 

I  Lev.,  chaps.  2-5.         ^  Lev.,  chap.  i.        3  Isa.  29:1.         4  Isa.  1:13. 


28  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

institutions,  which,  on  the  assumption  of  the  critics, 
should  be  unknown  to  his  time.  But  his  references  to 
them  indicate  a  regular  observance,  and  presume  a  codi- 
fied law. 

But  these  institutions,  of  which  we  have  seen  traces  in 
the  time  of  Isaiah,  are  visible  through  all  of  Hebrew  history. 

The  meal-offering,  for  instance,  is  mentioned  at  least 
in  Judg.  13:19,  23;  I  Kings  8:64  (the  time  of  Solomon); 
II  Kings  3:20;  16:13,15;  Amos.  5:22,  25;  Zeph.  3:10. 
Of  course  no  one  can  dispute  the  authority  of  Amos,  at 
least.  The  peace-offering  is  not  only  known  to  E  and  D, 
but  is  mentioned  in  all  the  historical  books,  and  in  Amos, ' 
who  speaks  of  it  as  a  regular  sacrifice.  The  thank-offering 
is  also  well  known  to  Amos."  The  trespass-offering  is 
mentioned  in  I  Sam.^  Incense  was  a  part  of  Eli's  wor- 
ship. Solomon  offered  it  also.  And  it  was  regularly  used 
in  the  times  of  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah.  Calling  of  assem- 
blies is  testified  to  by  Isaiah.'*  The  new-moon  festivals 
were  celebrated  regularly  in  the  time  of  Elisha,  Hosea, 
Amos,  Isaiah,  and  Ezekiel.^ 

Many  critics  are  willing  to  admit  that  these  customs 
may  perhaps  have  existed,  but  they  qualify  their  admission 
by  saying  that  there  were  no  codified  laws  regulating  them. 
But  anyone  who  recognizes  the  truth  that  in  all  other  lands 
the  temple  rituals  were  carefully  regulated  by  ceremonial 
codes  finds  it  hard  to  believe  that  the  Hebrew  temple 
ritual  was  any  exception  to  the  rule.  But,  after  all,  we 
are  not  dealing  with  the  question  of  codes  just  here.  We 
are  merely  controverting  that  argument  which  says  that 
the  absence  of  these  institutions  before  the  Exile  and  their 

I  Amos.  5:22.         3  I  Sam.  6:3,  4,  8,  17.         s  Ezek.  45: 17;  46:1,  3,  6. 
^  Amos.  4:5.  4lsa.  1:13;  4:5. 


RELIGIOUS  INSTITUTIONS  29 

presence  in  P  is  good  reason  for  dating  the  latter  during 
or  after  the  Exile.  We  have  felt  constrained  to  decline 
the  conclusion.  The  first  premise  is  a  mere  assumption, 
and  one  contrary  to  the  evidence  which  the  Bible  itself 
furnishes. 

c)  Much  stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  different  ways 
in  which  the  D  and  P  codes  regard  the  priests  and  Levites. 
It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  D  document  represents  all 
Levites  as  priests,  while  the  P  document  and  code  recog- 
nize as  priests  only  the  sons  of  Aaron,  and  regard  the 
Levites  generally  as  belonging  to  an  inferior  order. 
Modern  criticism  seeks  to  explain  the  discrepancy  by 
assuming  that  a  degradation  of  idolatrous  priests  into 
Levites  took  place  after  D  was  published  in  621.  Critics 
seek  to  base  this  degradation  on  the  code  of  Ezekiel,' 
where  Ezekiel  suggests  that  only  priests  coming  from 
Zadok  ("sons  of  Zadok")  should  be  permitted  to  offer 
sacrifices  in  the  temple,  and  that  all  the  other  Levites 
should  perform  the  menial  offices  in  the  temple. 

The  theory  seems  plausible,  but  is  so  only  on  the 
surface.  For  one  thing,  the  P  code  and  document  do  not 
know  of  "sons  of  Zadok;"  they  speak  of  "sons  of  Aaron." 
And  these  terms  cannot  be  made  equal.  Further,  if  the 
degradation  of  the  Levites  was  based  on  Ezek.  44:43., 
its  first  promulgation  was,  of  course,  made  at  the  great 
Feast  of  Tabernacles  in  444  b.  c,  when  Ezra  read  his 
law-book  to  the  people.  Is  it  not  somewhat  remarkable 
that  all  the  people,  including  the  Levites  themselves, 
accepted  these  new  laws  with  shouts  of  joy,  and  that  not 
one  single  murmur  of  objection  was  made  by  those  who 
now  heard  that  they  were  degraded  from  priests  into  mere 

I  Ezek.  44 : 4  fif. 


30  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

temple  menials?  Up  to  the  arrival  of  Nehemiah,  Ezra 
had  not  been  much  in  the  favor  of  the  people,  but  he  had 
done  nothing  toward  degrading  the  priests.  He  had  not 
even  mentioned  anything  of  the  kind.  And  are  we  to 
believe  that  now,  when  he  puts  forth  a  law-book  in  which 
a  very  large  proportion  of  his  own  Levitical  tribesmen 
are  degraded,  this  act  establishes  him  firmly  in  their  good 
graces  ?  And  would  we  not  expect  that  this  stupendous 
change  in  priestly  arrangements  might  have  some  effect 
upon  the  people,  who  now  hear  of  it  for  the  first  time  ? 
Still,  they  display  not  a  trace  of  surprise.  They  take  it 
quite  as  a  matter  of  course.  They  are  highly  and  unani- 
mously satisfied.  That  this  degradation  took  place  in 
Ezra's  time  is  to  the  highest  degree  improbable.  Eze- 
kiel's  suggestion  that  the  high-priesthood  be  confined  to 
the  sons  of  Zadok  may  have  been  carried  out  by  Ezra, 
but  this  much  is  certain,  that  the  P  code  knows  not  one 
thing  about  it.  In  the  later  chapter  on  the  priesthoods 
we  shall  consider  this  more  fully. 

V.     Historical  Determinants  of  the  Date 

a)  It  is  admitted  by  a  large  number  of  conservative 
critics  that  Ezekiel  was  acquainted  with  the  Holiness  Code ' 
in  the  form  that  we  now  have  it.  This  means,  then,  that 
in  585  B.  c.  at  least  the  following  institutions  were  knowTi 
and  in  operation:  the  Aaronic  priesthood,^  the  high- 
priest,^  the  sin-  and  trespass-offerings,'*  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment,^ the  three  great  festivals,^  the  Feast  of  Trumpets,^ 
the  oil  for  the  lamps,  ^  the  shewbreads,^  the  sabbatical 

1  Lev.,  chaps.  17-26.  4  Lev.  19:21,  22;  23:19.        7  Lev.  23:23-25. 

2  Lev.  17:2;  21:1,  17,  21.      5  Lev.  23:27-32;  25:9.  8  Lev.  24:1-4. 

3  Lev.  21:10-15.  "^  Lev.  23:1-44.  9  Lev.  24:5-9. 


HISTORICAL  DETERMINANTS  OF  THE  DATE  31 

year,'  the  year  of  Jubilee/  and  Levitical  cities.^  And 
further,  this  means  that  these  laws  must  have  been  in 
operation  before  the  Exile  began. 

b)  Leviticus  contains  a  law  on  clean  and  unclean  ani- 
mals/ The  same  law  is  found  in  Deuteronomy.  ^  The 
verbal  agreement  and  the  order  of  enumeration  of  the 
animals  is  so  closely  parallel  that  the  two  codes  must  have 
known  of  one  another,  in  this  point  at  least,  and  the  one 
must  have  borrowed  from  the  other.  It  might  perhaps  be 
assumed  that  both  had  borrowed  from  a  common  source. 
But  the  language  is  not  Deuteronomic  but  priestly. 
Most  critics  admit  that,  in  this  case,  D  must  have  borrowed 
from  P.  This  means,  then,  that  a  part  of  P  existed  in  its 
present  form  before  Deuteronomy  was  published,  or  at 
least  in  the  same  time ;  and  as  the  promulgation  of  Deuter- 
onomy cannot  be  placed  later  than  621  b.  c,  at  least  this 
chapter  of  the  P  code  must  be  earlier  than  that  date.  And 
as  this  law  belongs,  not  to  the  Holiness  Code,  but  to  those 
general  laws  of  P  which  are  assumed  to  be  the  later  strata 
of  that  code,  we  conclude  that  not  only  the  Holiness  Code, 
but  the  whole  P  code  probably — most  probably — existed 
before  621  b.  c. 

The  connection  between  the  D  and  P  codes  is  further 
emphasized  by  a  number  of  institutions  similar  in  both 
codes:  the  year  of  release^  and  the  sabbatical  year,^ 
uncleanness^  and  ceremonial  impurity,^  the  laws  on  lep- 
rosy,'" the  laws  on  incest,"  and  the  laws  in  regard  to  the 
Levites." 

1  Lev.  25:1-7.  4  Lev.  11:2-19.  7  Lev.,  chap.  25. 

2  Lev.  25:8-13.  s  Deut.  14:4-20.  *  Deut.  23:9,  10. 

3  Lev.  25:32,  ;i^.  6  Deut.  15:1  S.  9  Lev.,  chap.  15. 
1°  Deut.  24:8;  Lev.,  chaps.  13,  14. 

II  Deut.  22:13;  Lev.,  chaps.  18,  20.         "  Deut.  18:2;  Num.  18:20  ff. 


32  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

c)  That  the  P  code  was  known  ca.  621  b.  c.  can  be 
further  demonstrated,  and  this  time  to  a  certainty.  It  is 
admitted  on  all  hands  that  Josiah's  reforms  were  carried 
out  after  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  found  in  the 
temple,  in  621  b.  c.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  these 
reforms  were  called  forth  by  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 
But  it  is  misleading  to  claim  that  all  of  his  reforms  were 
based  solely  on  that  book.  The  following  facts  should  be 
taken  into  consideration: 

1.  Josiah  broke  down  the  "high-places  of  the  satyrs.'" 
The  law  on  satyr- worship  is  found  only  in  the  P  code.^ 

2.  When  Josiah  destroyed  the  high -places  of  Judah, 
their  priests  were  not  permitted  to  serve  at  the  altar  in 
Jerusalem.  But  he  permitted  them  to  receive  their  por- 
tion of  the  unleavened  bread  of  the  temple.^  The  law 
on  the  priest's  portion  of  the  unleavened  bread  is  found 
only  in  the  P  code."^ 

3.  Josiah  destroyed  the  high-places  of  Judah, ^  Jeru- 
salem,^ and  Bethel.^  But  Deuteronomy  has  no  law 
whatever  on  high-places,  and  the  word  (in  this  technical 
sense)  does  not  occur  in  a  single  instance  in  the  whole 
D  code.  The  P  code,  however,  has  a  law  forbidding 
them.^ 

4.  Josiah  put  away  those  who  had  familiar  spirits, 
and  the  wizards.  These  are  the  only  two  kinds  of  witch- 
craft mentioned  in  the  reform.^  The  P  code  has  a  law 
confined  to  these  two  kinds  of  witchcraft.'"    It  is  true  that 

1  II  Kings  23:8.  The  Hebrew  reads  "gates,"  but  the  same  word  with 
different  points  means  "satyrs,"  and  as  satyr-worship  was  very  common,  the 
text  should  be  so  pointed. 

2  Lev.  17:7.  5  II  Kings  23:8.  «  Lev.  26:30. 

3  II  Kings  23:8,  9.  6  II  Kings  23: 13.  9  II  Kings  23 :  24. 

4  Lev.  6:14-18.  7  II  Kings  23:15.  '°  Lev.  20:27. 


HISTORICAL  DETERMINANTS  OF  THE  DATE  33 

Deuteronomy  has  a  law  on  witchcraft,  but  it  mentions 
not  less  than  eight  different  kinds.  The  wording  in  II 
Kings  most  naturally  identifies  the  reform  with  the  law 
in  Leviticus. 

5.  Josiah  forbade  Molech- worship.'  Molech  is  not 
mentioned  in  D.  But  the  P  code  has  two  laws  forbidding 
his  worship.^ 

d)  We  have  already  called  attention  to  the  reference 
by  Isaiah  to  certain  institutions  of  the  P  code  regularly 
observed  in  his  time.  It  is  then  interesting  to  notice  that 
Hosea  also^  puts  into  the  mouth  of  Yahweh  the  words, 
"Although  I  write  for  him  my  law  in  myriads  of  precepts." 
This  indicates  that  the  written  law  of  Yahweh  existed 
in  the  time  of  Hosea  {ca.  730  b.  c). 

e)  According  to  I  Kings,  ^  Solomon  offered  a  meal- 
offering  at  the  consecration  of  the  temple.  The  meal- 
offering  is  an  institution  of  the  P  code,^  and  is  found  only 
in  that  code.  This  carries  us  back  to  the  time  of  the  united 
kingdom  {ca.  960  b.  c). 

/)  In  I  Samuel^  we  read  that  before  Saul  visited  the 
witch  at  Endor  he  had  put  away  all  those  who  had  familiar 
spirits.  As  it  evidently  was  an  innovation  on  his  part  to 
do  this,  we  cannot  suppose  that  he  would  have  dared  to 
take  so  important  a  step  unless  he  had  behind  him  a  law 
recognized  as  valid  among  his  people.  Now,  the  E  code 
has  a  single  law  on  sorcery.^  As  for  D,  the  passage 
in  I  Samuel  betrays  no  affinity  either  in  thought  or  in 
language  with  it.  But  I  Samuel  does  come  very  close 
indeed  to  the  provisions  of  the  law  regarding  witchcraft 

1  II  Kings  23:10.  4  I  Kings  8:64.  6  I  Sam.  28:3-9. 

2  Lev.  18:21;  20:2-5.  s  Lev.,  chap.  2.  '  Exod.  22:18. 
3H0S.  8:12. 


34  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

in  P,'  where,  as  we  have  seen,  only  two  kinds  of  witches 
are  forbidden,  those  having  famihar  spirits  and  wizards. 
The  conditions  of  the  time,  as  we  know  from  contemporary 
history,  so  strongly  favored  astrology  and  all  kinds  of 
witchcraft  that  Saul  would  not  have  dared  undertake  his 
reform  except  with  the  explicit  support  of  a  well-known 
law.  And  the  law,  in  this  case,  could  only  be  the  one 
found  in  what  we  now  call  the  P  code. 

g)  Gen.  36:31  says  that  eight  kings  of  Edom  ruled 
before  there  reigned  one  in  Israel.  This  gives  a  terminus 
a  quo  for  this  P  portion  in  Genesis.  This  terminus 
is  the  reign  of  Saul,  the  first  king  of  Israel  (ca.  1050 
B.  c.).''  If  Gen.  36:31-39,  which  gives  the  history  of  the 
kings  of  Edom,  was  written  in  the  time  of  Ezra  or  of 
Ezekiel,  it  is  impossible  to  explain  why  only  eight  Edomite 
kings  should  be  mentioned,  and  this  history  end  abruptly 
with  Hadar.  In  the  case  of  the  first  seven  kings,  it  is 
stated  that  each  one  of  them  died,  but  no  such  remark 
is  added  about  Hadar.  The  only  legitimate  inference 
is  that  this  history  of  Edom  was  written,  when  Hadar  was 
yet  reigning,  either  before  or  in  the  early  part  of  Saul's 
(or  David's)  reign.  But  there  is  no  reason  why  the  P 
codes  should  not  have  existed  before  the  P  document,  and 
no  reason  why  this  statement  should  not  be  regarded  as  a 
redactorial  note. 

VI.     "Law  of  Yahweh" 

Thus  far  we  have  found  instances  throughout  the  his- 
torical books  indicating  that  the  laws  of  the  P  code  were 
in  operation  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Saul.     We  have 

■  Lev.  19:31;  20:6,  27. 

2  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  the  Greek  here  reads  "Jerusalem" 
for  "Israel,"  which  would  put  the  terminus  forty-seven  years  farther  on. 


"LAW  OF  YAHWEH"  35 

seen  that  reforms  were  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  this 
code,  and  that  in  the  nature  of  the  case  such  reforms  must 
have  been  based  on  codified  laws,  since  the  practices  that 
were  reformed  were  the  things  that  naturally  rested  upon 
traditions.  A  reform  is,  then,  something  new,  and  pre- 
supposes, not  a  tradition,  but  a  definite  law  which  enables 
a  ruler  or  a  priesthood  to  overrule  traditions  and  bring  in 
a  new  order  of  things.  As  surely  as  the  reforms  of  Josiah 
were  based  upon  written  laws,  so  were  the  reforms  of 
Hezekiah,  Jehoshaphat,  and  Saul  based  upon  written 
laws,  laws  which  the  people  must  have  bound  themselves 
to  obey.  At  this  late  day  it  cannot  possibly  be  objected 
that  written  laws  were  not  possible  at  so  early  a  date. 
The  Amarna  letters  (1400  b.  c.)  are  more  than  enough 
evidence  for  the  universal  use  of  writing  at  that  time. 
Writing  in  the  time  of  Saul  must  have  been  as  common 
as  in  the  time  of  Josiah. 

The  Bible  furnishes,  however,  evidence  that  the  P 
code  existed  in  written  form  long  before  the  time  of 
Ezekiel : 

a)  In  II  Chron.'  we  read,  "He  [Hezekiah]  appointed 
also  the  king's  portion  of  his  substance  for  the  burnt- 
offerings,  to  wit  for  the  morning  and  evening  burnt-offer- 
ings, and  the  burnt-offerings  for  the  Sabbaths,  and  for 
the  New-moons,  and  for  the  set  feasts,  as  it  is  written  in 
the  Law  of  Yahweh.  Moreover,  he  commanded  the  peo- 
ple that  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  to  give  the  portion  of  the 
priests  and  the  Levites,  that  they  might  give  themselves 
to  the  Law  oj  Yahweh  ^ 

Here  we  have  two  references  to  the  Law  oj  Yahweh. 
And  it  is  obvious  that  here  the  phrase  is  a  technical  term 

I  II  Chron.  31:3,  4. 


36  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

for  a  law  that  was  written.  What  law  could  this  have 
been?  The  mention  of  "priests  and  Levites"  points  to 
the  P  code.  So  does  the  mention  of  the  morning  and 
evening  burnt-offerings,  the  Sabbaths,  the  New-moons, 
and  the  set  festivals.  In  fact  the  whole  passage  betrays 
evidences  of  the  language  and  institutions  of  P.  Refer- 
ring, then,  back  to  the  P  code,  we  find  that  the  first  refer- 
ence of  our  quotation  gives  the  substance  of  the  law  in 
Num.,  chap.  28.  No  similar  law  is  found  elsewhere 
in  the  Hexateuch.  The  second  reference  refers  us  to 
Num.  18:8-24.  Nor  is  this  law  found  elsewhere  in  the 
Hexateuch.  The  term.  Law  oj  Yahweh,  may  then  be 
assumed  to  be  the  technical  term  for  the  P  code  in  the 
time  of  Hezekiah. 

The  objection  that  this  passage  is  found  in  Chronicles, 
which  came  from  priestly  hands,  cannot  be  much  regarded, 
for  it  is  impossible  to  show  that  the  matter  referred  to  is 
not  historically  true.  And,  furthermore,  we  shall  pres- 
ently show  that  the  same  technical  term  is  used  in  the 
same  sense  by  other  authors  of  whom  no  one  would  dream 
of  saying  that  they  belonged  to  the  priestly  school.  More- 
over, in  this  passage  we  have  the  confirmatory  evidence 
of  Kings,  which  says  of  Hezekiah  that  "he  kept  (or 
enforced)  the  commandments  which  Yahweh  commanded 
Moses.'"     The  language  here  points  to  the  P  code. 

b)  In  II  Chronicles  we  read,  "Now  the  rest  of  the  acts 
of  Josiah,  and  his  good  deeds,  according  to  that  which  is 
written  in  the  Laiv  0}  Yahweh,  and  his  acts,  first  and  last, 
they  are  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and 
Judah."^ 

i\gain  WT  deal  with  the  same  technical  term,  the  Law 

I  II  Kings  18:6.  2  II  Chron.  35:26,  27. 


"LAW  OF  YAHWEH"  37 

oj  Yahweh.  The  expression,  "good  deeds"  or  "bene- 
factions," presents  to  us  unmistakably  the  language  and 
spirit  of  the  P  code.  We  noticed  above  that  the  reforms 
of  Josiah  were  based  both  on  the  D  and  P  codes.  We 
know  that  the  D  code  existed  then  in  written  form.  What 
more  likely  than  that  the  P  code  did  also  ? 

c)  Jeremiah  was  a  contemporary  of  Josiah.  He  refers 
also  to  this  law,  the  Law  of  Yahweh,  although  he  accuses 
the  scribes  of  making  changes  in  it,  even  at  that  early 
time.  The  charge  was  undoubtedly  well  founded,  and 
is  one  which  should  be  constantly  remembered  in  consid- 
ering the  manuscripts  transcribed  by  the  scribes  from 
600  B.  c.  onward.  He  says,  "How  do  ye  say.  We  are  wise, 
and  the  Law  of  Yahweh  is  with  us?  But,  behold,  the 
false  pen  of  the  scribes  hath  wrought  falsely."' 

Wilful  corruptions  of  the  text,  then,  date  back  at  least 
to  the  days  of  Jeremiah! 

d)  We  noticed  above  that  the  P  code  was  known  by 
the  technical  term,  Law  of  Yahweh  in  the  time  of  Heze- 
kiah.  This,  of  course,  is  the  time  of  Isaiah.  And  he, 
too,  knew  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh.  He  says,  "Because 
they  have  rejected  the  Law  of  Yahweh  of  ILosts,  and 
despised  the  word  of  the  Holy  One  of  Israel."  =*  Yahweh 
of  Hosts  belongs  to  the  language  of  P,  and  Holy  One  of 
Israel,  while  characteristic  of  Isaiah,  has  for  its  basis,  too, 
the  language  of  the  P  code,  especially  that  of  the  Holiness 
Code. 

Again  he  says,  "For  it  is  a  rebellious  people,  lying 
children,  children  that  will  not  hear  the  Law  of  Yahweh.^ ^^ 
And  in  another  place,  "Seek  ye  out  of  the  Book  of 
Yahweh."'* 

I  Jer.  8:8.  »  Isa.  5:246.  3  Isa.  30:9.  4  Isa.  34:16. 


38  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

Here  is  an  explicit  reference  to  a  Book  of  Yahweh 
which  must  have  been  well  known  to  the  people.  It 
occurs  in  a  prophecy  in  which  Isaiah  predicts  the  doom 
of  Edom  for  its  unkindliness  toward  Israel.  The  prophet 
desires  to  call  the  people's  attention  to  the  fact  that  Edom 
had  always  been  treacherous  to  the  children  of  Israel,  and 
he  gives  for  proof  a  reference  to  the  Book  of  Yahweh.  It  is 
in  the  P  document'  that  we  find  proof  of  Isaiah's  veracity. 

The  Book  of  Yahweh,  then,  it  would  seem,  is  the  P  code 
and  document,  and  is  identical  with  the  Law  of  Yahweh, 
except  that  we  here  find  it  referred  to  as  a  book,  while 
the  Chronicler  merely  says  that  it  was  written.  The 
Hebrew  word  for  ''book,"  Sepher,  means  a  complete,  inde- 
pendent treatise.  It  is  possible  that  the  Law  of  Yahweh 
in  the  Book  of  Yahweh  was  merely  the  P  code  of  our 
Exodus-Numbers,  but  it  is  not  improbable  that  at  this 
time  the  P  sections  of  Genesis  already  belonged  to  it. 

e)  The  home  of  Amos  was  south  of  Jerusalem.  There- 
fore, if  the  P  code,  which  evidently  belonged  to  the  priests 
in  Jerusalem,  existed  in  his  time,  he  would  probably  know 
of  it.  He  prophesied  in  Bethel,  a  city  of  the  Northern 
Kingdom,  where  we  would  not  expect  to  find  traces  of 
the  P  code.  Nor  does  Amos  allude  to  it,  save  in  a  single 
paragraph,  which,  significantly  enough,  is  his  oracle 
against  Jerusalem,  where  he  says,  "Thus  says  Yahweh, 
For  three  transgressions  of  Judah,  yea  for  four,  I  will  not 
turn  it  away,  but  because  they  have  rejected  the  Law  of 
Yahweh,  and  have  not  kept  his  statutes,  and  their  lies 
have  caused  them  to  err,  after  the  which  their  fathers  did 
walk,  .  .  .  ."^ 

Is  it  not  significant  that  of  all  his  oracles  Amos  should 

I  Num.  20:14-21.  2  Amos  2:4. 


"LAW  OF  YAHWEH"  39 

make  mention  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh  only  in  that  against 
Judah?  We  are  almost  forced  to  admit,  as  a  logical 
consequence,  that  the  Law  of  Yahweh  is  a  technical 
term  for  a  law-book  existing  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  and 
that  this  book  existed  there  in  the  time  of  Amos. 

/)  II  Kings  refers  us  again  to  the  Law  of  Yahweh. 
"But  Jehu  took  no  heed  to  walk  in  the  Law  of  Yahweh, 
the  God  of  Israel,  with  all  his  heart;  he  departed  not  from 
the  sins  of  Jeroboam,  wherewith  he  made  Israel  to  sin."^ 

Here  it  is  not  the  Chronicler,  but  the  Deuteronomic 
compiler  of  Kings,  who  uses  this  term,  the  Law  of  Yahweh. 
Now  Jehu  was  in  the  Northern  Kingdom,  and  therefore, 
if  we  have  been  correct  in  our  conclusions,  not  under 
the  Law  of  Yahweh.  But  the  editor,  living  in  Jerusalem, 
judged  him  to  have  been  a  bad  king  simply  because  he 
did  not  accept  the  law-book  of  Judah.  At  any  rate,  the 
term  is  not  one  coined  by  the  late  Chronicler. 

g)  Going  back  to  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  we  read 
again,  "And  they  taught  in  Judah,  having  the  book  of 
the  Law  of  Yahweh  with  them;  and  they  went  about 
throughout  all  the  cities  of  Judah,  and  taught  among  the 
people."^ 

The  reference  is  to  Levites  who  are  teaching  "the 
book"  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh.  And  here  we  get  the  wel- 
come information,  which  we  anticipated  when  examining 
the  passage  from  Isaiah,  that  the  "Book  of  Yahweh" 
was  "the  book"  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh.  Now,  this  teach- 
ing began  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoshaphat  (873  b.  c). 
We  must  admit  that  the  term,  the  Law  of  Yahweh,  seems 
to  be  a  technical  term,  with  the  same  meaning  as  in  other 
passages  in  Chronicles. 

I  II  Kings  10:31.  2  II  Chron.  17:9. 


40  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

It  is  of  great  importance  that  we  here  find  the  Levites 
out  on  missionary  work,  introducing  the  Law  of  Yahweh 
to  the  people  of  the  cities  of  Judah.  This  preaching  pre- 
supposes two  things :  first,  that  before  this  time  it  had  not 
been  well  known  outside  of  Jerusalem  proper,  and  second, 
that  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  whose  code  this  was,  were 
now  in  the  ascendancy,  eager  to  propagate  the  peculiar 
tenets  of  their  creed. 

h)  Asa,  father  of  Jehoshaphat,  was  equally  a  zealous 
supporter  of  the  P  code.  We  read,  "And  he  [Asa]  com- 
manded to  seek  Yahweh,  the  God  of  their  fathers,  and 
to  do  the  law  and  the  commandments."'  And  again, 
"Now  for  a  long  time  Israel  had  been  without  the  true 
God,  and  without  a  teaching  priest,  and  without  Torah."^ 

The  "teaching  priest,"  "law,"  "commandments," 
are  all  well-known  expressions  of  the  P  code.  Tor  ah 
may  mean  "teaching,"  as  so  many  modern  scholars  would 
have  us  believe,  and  in  many  cases  it  undoubtedly  does 
mean  this;  but  when  it  is  used  in  a  technical  sense,  as  it  evi- 
dently is  here,  it  can  refer  only  to  a  collection  of  oracles  or 
laws.  Furthermore,  we  must  assume  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  that  it  was  in  written  form.  We  have  no  warrant  for 
the  assumption  that  Torah  may  mean  an  oral  tradition, 
when  used  in  a  technical  sense.  If  the  P  document  was, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  book  form  in  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat, 
it  would  be  unwarranted  to  assume  that  it  was  only  oral 
tradition  in  the  time  of  his  immediate  predecessor,  Asa. 

i)  The  dying  David  prays  for  his  son,  Solomon,  saying, 
"Only  Yahweh  give  thee  discretion  and  understanding, 
and  give  thee  charge  concerning  Israel;  that  so  thou 
mayest  keep  the  Law  oj  Yahweh,  thy  God."^ 

'  II  Chron.  14:4.  ^  II  Chron.  15:3.  3  I  Chron.  22:12. 


"LAW  OF  YAHWEH"  41 

The  phrase,  ''Yahweh  thy  God,"  looks  Deuteronomic 
at  first  glance,  and  we  might  suppose  that  possibly  the 
reference  was  to  the  D  code;  but  this  code  is  never  else- 
where referred  to  as  ^^the  Law  of  Yahweh.^^  This  refer- 
ence may  not  be  pressed  as  a  certain  reference  to  the  P 
code,  but  this  seems  the  most  likely  explanation.  But 
we  have  another  instance  recorded  in  regard  to  David/ 
In  this  other  case,  David  assigns  different  orders  of  priests 
to  the  different  sanctuaries:  Asaph  and  his  brethren  to 
minister  before  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  Yahweh  in 
Jerusalem,  as  every  day's  work  required,  and  Zadok  the 
priest  and  his  brethren,  before  the  Tabernacle  of  Yahweh 
in  the  high-place  at  Gibeon,  these  latter  ''to  offer  burnt- 
offerings  morning  and  evening,  even  according  to  all  that 
is  written  in  the  Law  of  Yahweh,  which  he  commanded 
unto  Israel." 

This  passage  is  of  the  utmost  importance  if  we  desire 
to  understand  the  religious  situation  of  the  time.  Here 
we  have  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  with  a  certain  priesthood, 
set  up  in  Jerusalem,  and  the  Tabernacle  of  Yahweh,  with 
another  priesthood  set  up  in  Gibeon.  The  Ark  of  the 
Covenant  is  peculiarly  the  expression  of  the  E  and  D 
codes,  w^hile  the  Tabernacle  of  Yahweh  is  peculiar  to  the 
P  code.  In  this  passage  they  are  plainly  distinct.  More- 
over, the  ceremonies  before  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  are 
simple  and  undefined,  just  as  the  D  code  leaves  them. 
The  ceremonies  before  the  Tabernacle  of  Yahweh,  on 
the  other  hand,  are  those  defined  in  the  P  code.^  And 
before  this  Tabernacle,  it  is  explicitly  stated,  the  daily 
morning  and  evening  holocausts  were  offered,  "according 
to  all  that  is  written  in  the  Law  of  Yahweh.''    Further- 

I  I  Chron.  16:37-40.  '  Num.,  chap.  28. 


42  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

more,  it  is  said  that  this  law  was  in  written  form  in  the 
time  of  David.  We  must  understand  that  the  Law  oj 
Yahweh  here,  as  elsewhere,  means  the  P  code. 

We  found  above  that  Saul  carried  out  reforms  based 
upon  the  P  code.  And  here  we  find  that  this  code  exists 
in  written  form  a  few  years  after  Saul's  death.  The 
origin  of  the  book  of  the  P  code  can  hardly  be  placed  later 
than  the  reign  of  Saul.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have  no 
warrant  whatever,  derivable  from  the  Bible,  for  placing 
the  codification  of  the  laws  of  P  very  much  earlier.  It  is 
true  that  there  is  a  reference  to  the  Law  of  Yahweh  in 
Exod.  13:9,  but  critical  scholars  seem  to  prefer  that  this 
and  the  preceding  verses  be  assigned  to  the  D  document 
and  it  is  thought  that  these  verses  have  strayed  in,  in  quite 
lonely  fashion,  among  P  and  J  sections.  The  passage 
has  probably  been  misplaced. 

There  are  three  more  references  to  the  Law  of  Yahweh, 
in  Ezra,'  in  Nehemiah,^  and  in  Daniel.^  These,  however, 
are  quite  late,  and  are  of  no  use,  therefore,  in  determining 
the  terminus  a  quo  for  P.  What  we  have  already  shown 
is,  we  think,  superabundant  evidence  that  the  Law  of 
Yahweh  is  the  technical  term  for  the  P  code  and  document, 
and  that  that  code  and  document  existed  in  written  form, 
a  book,  as  early  as  the  time  of  David,  and,  most  probably, 
in  the  days  of  Saul. 

B.     EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE 

a)  To  this  internal  evidence  we  are  now  able  to  add 
some  of  an  external  sort.  In  1907  Dr.  Rubensohn  dis- 
covered at  Elephantine  three  documents  written  in  408 
B.  c.  by  a  certain  Jedoniah,  a  priest  of  the  temple  of  Yah- 

I  Ezra  7: 10.  2  Neh.  9:3.  3  Dan.  9:10. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE  43 

weh  in  the  city  of  Elephantine,  in  southern  Egypt.  One 
of  these  documents  is  a  letter,  or  the  copy  of  a  letter, 
addressed  to  the  governor  of  Jerusalem,  asking  his  per- 
mission to  rebuild  the  Jewish  temple  in  Elephantine.  In 
this  letter  it  is  stated  that  this  temple  had  existed  when 
Cambyses  came  to  Egypt  to  conquer  it,  in  525  b.  c.  It 
adds  that  when  Cambyses  destroyed  all  the  temples  of 
Egypt,  he  left  this  one  alone  standing.  The  temple  later 
on,  through  the  influence  of  Egyptian  priests,  had  been 
destroyed.  The  Jews  now  wished  to  have  it  rebuilt. 
In  this  letter  there  are  several  remarkable  statements  in 
regard  to  the  temple  ritual,  by  which  it  is  plain  that  the 
services  were  conducted  according  to  the  elaborate  ritual 
of  the  P  code.  References  are  made  especially  to  the 
burning  of  incense,  holocausts,  and  meal-sacrifices.  The 
tone  of  the  whole  letter  indicates  that  these  services  had 
been  carried  on  ever  since  the  temple  had  been  founded. 
Now,  it  was  existing  in  525  b.  c,  and  the  probability 
is  that  it  had  existed  a  long  time  before  that.  Isaiah^ 
speaks  about  a  "pillar  of  Yah  weh"  on  the  border  of  Egypt, 
and  of  worship  in  the  Canaanite  tongue  (Galilean  Aramaic) 
in  five  cities  of  Egypt.  Four  of  these  places  are  mentioned 
by  Jeremiah,^  and  the  fifth  city  may,  perhaps,  have  been 
Elephantine.  If  the  temple  was  founded  in  the  time  of 
Isaiah  {ca.  700  b.  c.)  it  was  probably  by  fugitives  from 
Galilee,  fleeing  after  the  conquest  of  Zebulun  and  Naphtali 
by  Tiglath-pileser  IV.  This  is  perhaps  the  most  probable 
date  for  the  beginning  of  Jewish  services  in  Egypt.  We 
have  here,  then,  a  welcome  testimony  to  w^orship  with  a 
P  ritual  in  pre-Josianic  times.  ^ 

I  Isa.  19:19.  2  jer.  44:1. 

3  For  the  contents  of  the  Elephantine  letter,  see  Appendix  I. 


44  THE  DATE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

b)  The  Documentary  Hypothesis  assumes  that  the  P 
document  and  code  is  later  than  D,  and  that  the  compila- 
tion of  the  four  documents,  J,  E,  D,  and  P,  took  place  in 
the  time  of  Ezra.  Is  it  not  strange  that  in  this  compilation 
no  notice  is  taken  of  Deuteronomy  ?  The  first  four  books 
of  the  Hexateuch  are  closely  fused,  with  hardly  a  trace 
of  Deuteronomy,  which  latter  is  hung  on  to  the  completed 
JEP  document  in  such  a  manner  that  the  Greek  title, 
''the  Second  Law,"  or  Deuteronomy,  becomes  especially 
fitting.  The  fact  that  J,  E,  and  P  are  combined  and  D 
added  to  the  result  seems  to  point  to  a  date  for  the  com- 
pilation of  the  JEP  documents  before  the  D  document 
was  discovered  in  621  b.  c.  And  if  at  that  time  P  was 
combined  and  sometimes  fused  with  J  and  E,  it  must,  of 
course,  have  existed  at  that  time. 

C.  CONCLUSION 

In  view  of  all  these  considerations  it  seems  almost 
impossible  to  agree  with  those  advocates  of  the  Docu- 
mentary Hypothesis  who  assign  the  P  document  to  the 
time  of  Ezra,  or  indeed  to  any  late  date.  The  evidence, 
on  the  contrary,  all  seems  to  point  unmistakably  to  a  very 
early  date,  most  probably  to  about  the  time  of  Samuel, 
Saul,  and  David. 


CHAPTER  III 

The  Unity  and  Contents  of  the  P  Document 

I.     FRAGMENTS  AND  DOUBLETS 

The  P  document  should,  according  to  the  Documentary 

Hypothesis,  be  one  complete  document.     Still  it  gives, 

in    many    places,    no    complete    story    whatever.     For 

instance : 

a)  Gen.  19:29  must  be  placed  immediately  after  Gen. 
13:12  in  order  to  give  it  any  meaning  that  is  reasonable. 
The  P  redactor  is  thus  charged  with  a  wilful  mutilation 
of  the  document.  But  even  if  this  be  admitted,  P  has  no 
story  of  the  overthrow  of  Sodom,  and  Gen.  19:29  pre- 
supposes such  a  story  in  the  document.  This  story  must 
have  been  omitted  from  the  P  narrative  when  that  narra- 
tive was  incorporated  into  the  Hexateuch. 

b)  Gen.  25 :  19,  20,  26c  cannot  be  understood  by  them- 
selves, because  the  P  document  nowhere  tells  of  the  birth 
of  Esau  and  Jacob. 

c)  P  does  not  know  that  Jacob  ever  came  to  Laban. 
Still,  it  is  said,  it  informs  us  that  Laban  gave  Zilpah  as 
handmaid  to  Leah,'  that  he  gave  Rachel  to  Jacob  as  wife," 
and  Bilhah  as  handmaid  to  Rachel.  But  the  document 
nowhere  tells  us  that  Leah  was  the  wife  of  Jacob.  These 
two  verses  do  not  fit  together,  nor  do  they  give  the  same 
meaning. 

d)  It  is  impossible  to  understand  Gen.  30:21  otherwise 
than  that  Dinah  is  a  daughter  of  Bilhah,  if  we  read  the 
P  document  by  itself;  but  when  we  read  the  passage  as  a 

I  Gen.  29:24.  '  Gen.  29:286,  29. 

45 


46   THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

whole,  as  it  stands  in  the  Bible,  she  appears  to  be  the  daugh- 
ter of  Leah.  The  best  way  to  explain  this  is  on  the  hypoth- 
esis that  that  portion  of  the  P  document  which  dealt  with 
Leah  has  been  lost. 

e)  Gen.  31:18^  does  not  fit  together  with  Gen.  30:21, 
which  precedes  it  immediately  in  the  P  document,  so 
called. 

/)  Gen.  37:2a  shows  no  connection  with  Gen.  41:46, 
which  is  supposed  to  follow  it  in  the  document. 

g)  Gen.  47:5-11  cannot  be  understood  without  the 
preceding  history  of  Joseph  in  Egypt,  which,  however, 
is  not  to  be  found  in  this  document. 

Gen.  26:34;  28:9;  and  36:1-14  cannot  all  have 
come  from  the  same  document.  Modern  criticism  assigns 
these  sections  dealing  with  the  genealogy  of  Esau  all  to 
the  P  document,  nevertheless.  As  they  contradict  one 
another,  and  as  the  same  author  should  hardly  have  felt 
the  need  of  recording  the  genealogy  three  times  in  three 
different  ways,  such  an  assignment  seems  very  improbable, 
if  there  be  but  one  P  document. 

Lev.,  chaps.  18  and  20,  contain  similar  laws,  on  the 
same  subject,  but  in  detail  quite  divergent.  It  is  not  easy 
to  see  how  these  laws  could  both  have  been  promulgated 
at  the  same  time  and  belong  to  the  same  document. 

Nor  is  it  easy  to  see  why  the  same  code  should  con- 
tain such  a  large  number  of  laws  on  the  Sabbath. 

In  Lev.  1:3 — 6:7  is  a  code  dealing  with  the  sacrifices. 
In  Lev.  6:8—7:34  the  same  code  is  given  again,  covering 
the  same  ground. 

These  examples  could  be  multiplied  many  times  over, 
but  they  are  sufficient  to  show :  first,  that  the  P  document 
as  we  have  it  now  is  not  complete;  second,  that  there  must 


CHANGE  OF  NAMES  47 

have  been  more  than  one  P  document,  or  several  docu- 
ments, similar  in  language  and  contents,  from  which  the 
P  document  was  made  up.  Several  portions  of  this  P 
document  were  then  left  out  when  it  was  compiled  with 
the  other  documents,  wherever  these  other  documents 
presented  the  more  complete  story  on  a  given  point. 

II.    CHANGE  OF  NAMES 

It  is  assumed  on  the  basis  of  Exod.  6:2  that  when  God 
revealed  himself  in  a  theophany  under  a  new  name,  that 
new  name  should  constantly  be  applied  to  him  until 
another  new  name  was  given.  Now,  in  Gen.  17:1,  God 
revealed  himself  to  Abraham  and  announced  that  his 
name  was  El-Shaddai.  The  significance  of  this  name 
formed  the  basis  for  the  covenant  of  circumcision  which 
was  then  commanded.  Again,  in  Exod.  6:2,  El-Shaddai 
appeared  to  Moses  and  told  him  that  he  had  revealed 
himself  to  the  Patriarchs  under  the  name  of  El-Shaddai, 
but  that  his  real  name  was  Yahweh;  and  he  further  told 
him  that  this  was  to  be  his  everlasting  name.  The  P 
document,  consequently,  uses  Yahweh  after  Exod.  6:2. 
But  how  does  this  correspond  to  Gen.  17:2 — Exod.  6:1  ? 
We  would  certainly  expect  that  the  P  document  should 
here  constantly  use  El-Shaddai.  But  we  find  on  exami- 
nation that  this  is  not  the  case.  On  the  contrary,  this 
name  is  used  only  four  times.'  Otherwise,  the  name 
used  is  Elohim,  in  exactly  the  same  way  that  it  was  used 
of  him  before  the  theophany  of  the  seventeenth  chapter. 

This  observation  is  of  importance  for  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  P  document  in  Genesis.  Either  our  inter- 
pretation of  Exod.  6 : 2  is  faulty,  or  else  there  are  several 

I  Gen.  28:3;  35'-";  43^14;  48:3- 


48     THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

P  documents  in  Genesis,  only  one  of  which  knows  of  the 
El-Shaddai  theophany.  We  shall  presently  see  that  the 
latter  assumption  is  quite  probable. 

This  change  of  name  applies  not  only  to  God,  but  also 
to  some  of  the  patriarchs.  Abram's  name  was  changed 
to  Abraham,'  and  we  find  that  from  this  time  on  this 
patriarch  is  known  by  this  name.  Jacob's  name,  too, 
was  changed  to  Israel.  Genesis  gives  a  double  account 
of  this.  In  the  J  document  this  patriarch  is  known  from 
this  time  on  by  the  latter  name.'  The  P  document  is 
generally  supposed  to  relate  the  same  event  ;^  but  here 
we  find,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  not  a  single  instance  after 
the  change  of  name  of  the  use  of  the  name  Israel.  Again, 
we  may  suppose  that  we  have  two  P  documents  to  deal 
with,  the  one  of  which  knows  of  the  change,  the  other  of 
which  does  not.  We  must  not,  in  this  connection,  lose 
sight  of  the  fact  that  in  ancient  times  the  bestowing  of  a 
new  name  connoted  elevation  to  a  higher  oflice.  On  the 
Egyptian  monuments  we  find  not  only  that  a  king  at  his 
coronation  received  a  "throne  name,"  but  also  that  indi- 
viduals, when  they  were  taken  into  favor  by  the  king, 
received  a  second  or  "beautiful"  name.  A  glance  at 
Egyptian  inscriptions  will  inform  us  that  kings  sometimes 
call  themselves  by  their  throne  names,  sometimes  by 
their  birth  names,  and  that  they  are  so  addressed  by 
others.  Favored  individuals  also  could  be  addressed  either 
by  their  birth  names  or  by  their  beautiful  names.  Thus 
we  might  assume  that  the  J  document  uses  the  beautiful 
name  or  the  throne  name  perhaps,  if  Israel  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  king,  while  the  P  document  uses  the  birth 
name. 

'  Gen.  17:5.  2  Gen.  32:28.  3  Gen.  35:10. 


THE  FOUR  COVENANTS  49 

Thus  we  may  admit  that  in  the  case  of  Jacob-Israel 
there  was  but  one  P  document.  Still,  however,  the  diffi- 
culty with  the  names  El-Shaddai  and  Yahweh  is  such  that 
we  are  almost  forced  to  assume  two  P  documents.  It 
seems  improbable  that  the  Hebrew  text,  the  Samaritan 
text,  and  the  Septuagint  version  should  all  have  undergone 
such  wholesale  corruption  that  the  name  El-Shaddai 
should  be  changed  to  Elohim  in  every  case  in  P  from  Gen. 
17:2  to  Exod.  6:2,  with  only  the  four  exceptions  noted 
above. 

III.     THE  FOUR  COVENANTS 

When  the  Development  Hypothesis  was  first  advanced, 
Wellhausen  assumed  that  the  P  document  was  arranged 
according  to  four  great  covenants,  one  in  Gen.,  chap,  i,  a 
second  in  Gen.,  chap.  9,  a  third  in  Gen.,  chap.  17,  and  a 
fourth  at  Sinai  (Exod.,  chap.  34).  There  is,  however,  no 
covenant  at  all  in  Gen.,  chap.  i.  There  could  not  be, 
for  there  was  neither  a  theophany  nor  a  divine  promise. 
There  is  no  mention  in  the  chapter  of  anything  resembling 
a  covenant.  Nor  is  there  any  theophany  recorded  in  Gen., 
chap.  9.  Further,  it  seems  very  uncertain  that  there  is 
any  covenant  at  Sinai  recorded  in  the  P  document.  J  and 
P  are  here  hopelessly  fused,  and  it  seems  more  than  prob- 
able that  the  covenant  was  a  part  of  J.  If  so,  there  was  no 
P  covenant  at  Sinai,  and  Lev.  26:9,  which  could  be  the 
only  reference  applicable  here,  refers  to  a  covenant  to 
come  in  the  future.  Furthermore,  if  a  new  covenant  was 
vouchsafed  at  this  time,  it  should  have  been  mentioned 
in  Exod.  6:2,  where  Yahweh  revealed  his  new  name  to 
Moses.  Most  modern  critics,  in  view  of  all  these  facts, 
have  given  up  the  idea  that  P  is  based  on  four  covenants. 


so     THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

IV.     THE  TEN  TOLEDOTH 

More  important  is  the  assumption  that  the  P  document 
should  consist  of  ten  toledoth,  each  introduced  by  the  for- 
mula, "These  are  the  generations  of "  The  word 

toledoth,  or  "generations,"  corresponds  somewhat  to  our 
idea  of  historical  records,  or  genealogies,  and  the  formula 
does  occur  ten  times  in  Genesis.  But  it  is  important  to 
note  that  it  does  not  occur  elsewhere  in  the  books  of  the 
Hexateuch.  Of  equal  importance  is  the  fact  that  the 
histories  of  Abraham,  Joseph,  and  Moses,  the  most  im- 
portant personages  mentioned  in  the  P  document,  are 
none  of  them  introduced  by  this  formula.  It  has  been 
assumed  that  in  P  this  formula  stood  at  the  beginning 
of  the  history  of  each  patriarch,  or  else  as  a  title  over  each 
section  of  the  document.  But  the  formula  is  not  found  in 
Gen.  I  :i  in  introducing  that  section  which  tells  of  the  cre- 
ation. This  omission  is  significant.  Modern  criticism 
assumes  that  it  has  been  misplaced  by  a  later  redactor,  and 
put  at  the  beginning  of  the  Paradise  story  in  Gen.  2:4,  a 
story  which  belongs  to  the  J  document.  The  case  is  not  so 
simple,  however.  The  Septuagint  reads  in  this  latter  place, 
"This  is  the  book  of  the  generation  of  Heaven  and  Earth." 
The  word  "book"  presupposes  that  we  deal  here  with  an 
independent  document,  a  volume  by  itself.  The  Hebrew 
word  sepher,  Assyrian  shipru,  English  "book,"  can  only 
be  so  used.  The  most  likely  explanation  is  that  the  P 
document  did  have  a  Paradise  story,  of  which  this  was 
the  superscription,  w^hich  was  crowded  out  by  the  J  story 
of  the  Paradise  when  the  P  and  J  documents  were  in  later 
times  combined.  The  superscription  of  the  old  P  story, 
therefore,  now  stands  over  the  J  story.     If  this  be  so,  of 


THE  TEN  TOLEDOTH  51 

course  it  was  not  transferred  from  Gen.  1:1,  where,  by  the 
way,  it  does  not  fit. 

The  second  toledoth  section  is  to  be  found  in  Gen., 
chap.  5.  Here  the  formula  reads,  even  in  Hebrew, 
"This  is  the  hook  of  the  generations  of  Adam."  Again 
we  remark  the  word  sepher  as  evidence  that  once  this  sec- 
tion was  an  independent  work.  We  can  no  longer  speak 
of  the  P  document,  but  rather  of  the  P  documents  or  the 
P  fragments. 

In  the  case  of  the  history  of  Jacob,  the  toledoth  formula 
appears  only  when  the  patriarch  is  old,  when  all  his  chil- 
dren have  been  born,  and  when  over  half  of  his  history 
has  already  been  given.'  No  satisfactory  explanation 
of  this  phenomenon  has  as  yet  appeared.  One  would 
certainly  expect  the  formula  to  appear  where  the  story 
of  Jacob  begins.^ 

The  toledoth  section  introducing  the  genealogy  of  the 
sons  of  Shem^  cannot  possibly  be  a  continuation  of  that 
toledoth  section  which  introduces  the  sons  of  Noah,* 
because  the  sons  of  Shem  have  already  been  given.  ^  If 
the  latter  genealogy  belongs  to  the  toledoth  of  the  sons  of 
Noah,  then  the  P  document  has  a  useless  repetition,  which 
is  entirely  contrary  to  the  theory  according  to  which  P  is 
generally  supposed  to  have  been  composed.  Not  more 
than  one  of  these  genealogies  of  Shem  can  have  belonged 
to  the  toledoth  sections.  Either  the  genealogy  given  among 
the  sons  of  Noah  is  not  a  part  of  the  P  document,  or  else 
there  was  a  P  document  outside  of  the  toledoth  book.  As 
the  section  under  discussion  is  evidently  to  be  identified  with 
the  P  style,  the  latter  alternative  seems  the  more  probable. 

1  Gen.  37:2.  3  Gen.  11:10.  s  Gen.  10:22-31. 

2  Gen.  27:46.  4  Gen.  10:1. 


52      THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

V.     THE  FRAMEWORK  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH 

It  is  generally  assumed  that  the  P  document  forms  the 
framework  of  the  Hexateuch.  This  is  but  partly  correct. 
In  the  book  of  Joshua  the  P  sections  are  so  few  and  so 
insignificant  that  they  cannot  possibly  be  regarded  as 
forming  the  framework  of  the  book.  In  Exodus  and 
Numbers  the  P  sections  are  more  prominent;  but  most 
modern  critics  admit  that  even  here  P  does  not  supply 
the  framework.  There  remains,  then,  Genesis;  and  here 
it  is  evident  that  P  is  the  framework  into  which  the  other 
sections,  those  of  J  and  E,  have  been  fitted. 

But  it  is  in  this  same  book  of  Genesis  that  we  find  a 
number  of  toledoth  sections.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  it  is 
not  the  whole  P  document,  but  merely  the  toledoth  sections 
that  furnish  the  framework  for  this  book. 

We  come  now  to  the  important  question,  "Were  these 
toledoth  sections  originally  a  part  of  what  we  call  the  P 
document?"     The  answer  is,  "No."     Let  us  see  why. 

A.     The  Toledoth  Book 

Wherever  we  meet  in  Genesis  with  the  formula,  "These 
are  the  generations  of,"  we  find  a  peculiarity  of  language 
that  is  only  rarely  to  be  observed  elsewhere  in  P.  It  is 
positively  to  be  affirmed  that  the  toledoth  sections  do  belong 
to  the  P  or  Levitical  style  of  writing.  But  their  vocabu- 
lary, phraseology,  and  historical  viewpoint  show  a  marked 
divergence  from  the  rest  of  P.  And,  on  close  examination, 
we  find  a  difference  in  religious  conceptions  between  the 
toledoth  sections  and  other  P  sections,  even  others  contained 
in  the  same  book.  Genesis.  The  toledoth  sections — or  let 
us  call  them,   for  the  present,   the  toledoth  Book — pay 


THE  TOLEDOTH  BOOK  53 

minute  attention  to  chronological  dates  of  a  genealogical 
sort,  of  which  none  is  to  be  found  in  other  P  sections. 
Both  the  J  and  P  documents  do  give  genealogies,  but  they 
are  always  introduced  with  the  formula,  "These  are  the 
names  of,"  or,  "These  are  the  sons  of;"  and  nowhere  in 
them  do  we  find  the  expression,  "These  are  the  generations 
of." 

The  style  and  language  of  P  is  admittedly  so  peculiar, 
and  offers  such  a  marked  contrast  to  the  language  of  other 
sections  of  the  Hexateuch  that  there  can  hardly  be  much 
well-founded  doubt  as  to  what  are  and  what  are  not  P 
sections.  But  even  in  the  P  document  we  find  differen- 
tiations of  language  and  style  which  can  hardly  be 
accounted  for  on  any  other  hypothesis  than  the  one  which 
ascribes  our  P  document  to  at  least  two  different  sources. 
In  the  toledoth  Book,  for  instance,  we  find  expressions  like, 
"establish  a  covenant,"  here  a  technical  term,  while  in 
the  other  sections  of  the  P  document  we  meet  with  the 
formula  "give  a  covenant."  In  the  toledoth  Book  we  micet 
the  word  rekush,  "substance,"  and,  if  we  may  trust  the 
Septuagint,  this  word  was  not  used  outside  that  book.' 
The  dift'erentiation  is  apparent  in  words  used  both  in  the 
toledoth  Book  and  in  other  sections  of  P,  but  with  different 
meanings.  Thus,  in  the  toledoth  Book, '  the  Hebrew  word 
kabod  signifies  "honor,"  while  everywhere  else  in  P  it  is 
the  technical  term  for  the  presence  of  Yahweh,  and  is 
rendered,  in  our  versions,  "  glory. "^    Again,  the  toledoth 

1  In  Gen.  15:4;  46:6;  Num.  16:32;  35:3  the  Greek  is  aposkeve  and 
ktene,  which  presuppose  Hebrew  miqneh.  When  these  passages  have  been 
corrected  the  word  rekush  occurs  nowhere  outside  of  the  toledoth  sections. 

2  Gen.  49:6. 

3  The  J  document  uses  the  same  word  (Gen.  31:1;  45: 13),  in  the  sense- of 
"property." 


54  THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

Book  uses  for  "handmaid"  the  Hebrew  shiphchah  in 
agreement  with  J/  The  P  document  outside  these  sec- 
tions, however,  uses  amah,''  in  agreement  with  the  E  and 
D  documents.  Many  other  instances  of  these  linguistic 
differences  between  the  toledoth  Book  and  the  rest  of  P 
might  be  noted.  Perhaps  one  of  the  others  worth  par- 
ticular mention  is  the  use  of  Elohim,  which  is  used  in  a 
plural  sense  frequently  (perhaps  always)  in  the  toledoth 
Book,  but  always  in  the  singular  in  the  rest  of  the  document. 

We  mentioned  above  that  the  P  document  contains  two 
or  three  contradictory  statements  in  regard  to  Esau's 
wives.  ^  The  style  of  the  sections  where  these  are  given 
is  admittedly  that  of  P.  But  Wellhausen  himself  has 
admitted  that  if  the  Documentary  Hypothesis  be  correct 
not  more  than  one  of  these  statements  can  rightly  belong 
to  P.  The  way  out  of  the  dilemma  is  to  assign  the  latter 
of  these  statements'*  to  the  toledoth  Book,  with  which  it 
agrees  in  language,  and  the  former^  to  the  P  document 
proper. 

In  a  similar  manner  the  two  genealogies  of  Shem  in 
Gen.,  chaps.  lo  and  ii,  can  be  disposed  of.  In  Gen., 
chap.  II,  we  have  the  language  and  characteristic  formula 
of  the  toledoth  Book.  In  Gen.,  chap.  lo,  the  style  is  that 
of  the  P  document  proper. 

Likewise  the  genealogies  of  the  sons  of  Jacob  who 
went  down  to  Egypt ^  are  to  be  explained.  The  former 
of  these,  with  its  reference  to  Paddan-Aram,  betrays  the 
language  of  the  P  document  proper;   the  latter,  although 

'  The  only  exception  is  Lev.  19:20,  which  in  other  respects  offers  a  pecu- 
liarly ancient  language. 

2  Lev.  25:6,  44.  5  Gen.  26:34;  28:9. 

3  Gen.  26:34;  28:9;  36:1-14.  6  Gen.  46:8-25;  Exod.  1:2-5. 

4  Gen.  36: 1-14. 


THE  P  DOCUMENT  PROPER  55 

it  has  not  the  characteristic  formula  of  the  toledoth  Book, 
nevertheless  belongs  to  it. 

It  certainly  seems  plain  that  there  is  not  much  internal 
unity  between  the  toledoth  sections  and  the  rest  of  P. ' 

The  language  of  the  toledoth  Book  and  its  religious 
views,  as  well  as  its  historical  and  archaeological  notes, 
mark  it  as  older  in  origin  than  the  rest  of  P,  and  show  it  to 
have  more  affinity  to  the  age  and  conditions  of  life  set 
forth  in  the  J  document. 

This  toledoth  Book  seems  originally  to  have  been  com- 
posed of  a  number  of  documents,  still  distinguishable  by 
the  references^  to  "the  book"  of  generations.  This 
being  so  of  these  documents  where  this  phrase  occurs  in 
superscription,  it  is  perhaps  not  unfair  to  assume  that  all 
the  toledoth  sections  were  originally  independent  docu- 
ments. And  we  may  even  assume  that,  when  these  docu- 
ments were  compiled  into  one  book,  the  toledoth  Book, 
this  resultant  document  contained  the  "generations"  of 
Abraham,  Moses,  and  Joseph,  as  well  as  those  which  we 
still  have,  sections  which  were  later  crowded  out  when 
J  and  P  proper  were  combined  with  it. 

B.     The  P  Document  Proper 

The  sections  of  the  P  document  which  remain  after 
the  removal  of  the  toledoth  Book  show  an  unmistakable 
unity  of  thought  and  agreement  in  language.  They  con- 
tain, also,  most  of  the  laws  of  the  P  code.  These  laws 
in  their  present  form  are  in  the  language  of  the  P  docu- 

1  The  latest  attempt  of  the  critics  to  escape  the  diiScuIties  in  P  is  their 
theory  that  P  is  the  product  of  a  school  and  not  of  an  author.  This  simply 
goes  to  show  how  inadequate  the  Documentary  Hypothesis  in  its  fulness  has 
proven  to  be.     It  also  shows  how  far  from  settled  all  these  matters  are. 

2  Gen.  2:4;  5:1. 


56     THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

ment  proper,  although  it  is  to  be  admitted  that  certain 
sections  of  them,  especially  the  so-called  "statutes"  and 
parts  of  the  Holiness  Code,  seem  to  have  been  only  older 
laws,  probably  pre-Aaronic,  which  were  recast,  fitted  into 
the  language  of  the  P  people,  and  embodied  in  the  P 
document. 

We  have  referred  to  the  hook  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh, 
and  we  found  that  it  was  the  technical  term  for  the  P  code.. 
This  code  was  at  some  time  combined  with  the  P  docu- 
ment and  with  the  toledoth  Book.  The  resulting  complex, 
then,  made  up  of  three  originals  at  least,  is  our  P  "docu- 
ment," so  called. 


CHAPTER  IV 
The  Language  of  the  P  Document 

Some  further  consideration  must  here  be  paid  to  the 
language  of  the  P  document  or  documents. 

It  is  assumed  by  many  critics  that  P  is  a  product  of 
the  age  of  Ezra,  even  though  parts  of  it  may  go  back  to 
as  early  as  the  age  of  Ezekiel. '     But  if  P  had  been  written 
at  that  time  it  would  surely  represent  the  language  of 
Ezra's  age.     While  there  are  a  number  of  similarities  in 
vocabulary,   phraseology,   and   thought   between   P  and 
Ezekiel,  similarities  which  the  critics  have  greatly  magni- 
fied, it  should  not  be  forgotten  that  there  are  almost  as 
large  a  number  of  dissimilarities  between  them.     The 
language  of  Ezekiel  is  rugged,  and  bears  everywhere  the 
imprint  of  the  exilic  period.     Malachi  belongs  to  the  time 
of  Ezra,  and  his  style  too  shows  affinity  with  the  disin- 
tegrated language  which  came  in  with  the  Exile.     The 
books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  probably  written  a  hundred 
years  later,  but  still  the  product  of  the  post-exilic  period, 
add  their  witness  to  this  disintegration.     But  when  we 
turn  to  the  P  document  and  code  not  a  trace  of  this  dis- 
integration is  to  be  found.     The  vocabulary  is  in  some 
respects  similar  to   that   of   Ezekiel  and  Malachi.     But 
the  document  moves  in  precise  and  stately  expressions. 
The  style  is  pure.     The  forms  used  are  correct.     Here 
and  there  are  preserved  archaisms.     Not  a  single  hint  of 
exilic    or   post-exilic   disintegration    meets   our   eye.     P 
belongs  to  an  age  of  a  purer  language. 

I  Attention  has  been  called  to  the  apparent  agreement  in  thought  and 
expression  between  Ezekiel  and  P. 

57 


58  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

Still  we  must  account  in  some  way  for  the  extreme 
difference  in  style  and  vocabulary  between  P  and  D.  If 
we  assume  that  the  dates  usually  assigned  by  the  critics 
for  these  documents  are  correct,  how  can  we  account  for 
such  an  enormous  change  in  language  between  621  b.  c, 
when,  it  is  said,  D  was  first  promulgated,  and  585  B.  c, 
when  Ezekiel  began  to  prophesy,  and  the  Holiness  Code, 
at  least,  was  in  existence  ?  We  would  have  here  a  phe- 
nomenon with  hardly  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  language, 
at  least  so  far  as  Semitic  philology  can  offer  us  comparative 
criteria.  But  a  far  easier  and  a  far  more  probable  expla- 
nation of  the  differences  between  the  codes  is  possible. 

Usually  these  documents  are  assumed  to  reflect  dift'er- 
ent  stages  in  the  life  of  the  Hebrews.  Each  stage  is  sup- 
posed to  have  produced  its  peculiar  document,  with  its 
peculiar  style,  vocabulary,  etc.  This  principle  may  in 
itself  be  sound.  But  it  is  most  unsound  to  deduce  from 
these  premises  the  dates  of  compilation  of  any  of  these 
documents,  say  of  D  and  P,  because  there  is  not  at  our 
disposal  any  external  literary  standard  by  which  we  can 
determine  their  respective  ages.  There  are  no  remains^ 
of  the  Hebrew  tongue  outside  of  the  Old  Testament. 
We  have  no  other  literature  with  which  we  can  compare 
any  of  the  documents,  and  so  establish  a  terminus  a  quo 
for  its  date. 

Because  of  this  lack  the  critics  have  employed  analogy, 
and  have  constructed  a  scheme  for  the  development  of 
the  Hebrew  language,  according  to  w^hich  they  pass  judg- 
ment upon  the  respective  ages  of  the  various  documents. 

I  The  Siloah  inscription,  dating  from  ca.  700  B.  c,  is  too  short  to  be  of 
any  appreciable  help  to  us.  Other  inscriptions  are  from  the  exilic  and  post- 
exilic  periods.  The  Mesa  inscription  is  in  the  dialect  of  Moab,  and  therefore 
cannot  help  us. 


HEBREW  DIALECTS  59 

This  scheme  may  seem  attractive,  but  it  is,  none  the  less, 
based  purely  upon  supposition. 

Hebrew  Dialects  : 

It  is  far  simpler,  and  more  probable,  to  suppose  that 
these  various  documents  differ  in  language  and  style,  not 
because  they  represent  different  periods  of  development, 
but  because  they  represent  different  contemporary,  or  nearly 
contemporary,  dialects.  These  dialects  may  have  been 
spoken  by  neighboring  peoples  at  the  same  time,  and  the 
language  of  one  dialect  may  have  progressed  or  decayed 
rapidly.  Therefore  they  may  vary  greatly  from  one 
another.  This  principle  of  dialects  is  so  well  known,  and 
established  by  comparative  philology  with  such  certainty, 
that  there  can  be  no  dispute  concerning  it.  Such  pheno- 
mena mark  the  history  of  every  cultivated  language  of 
the  globe.  It  was  so  in  Greece  and  Rome.  It  is  so  today 
in  England,  Italy,  Germany,  and  Sweden — even  in  the 
United  States.  The  modern  Arabic  dialects  show  that 
the  same  principle  applies  among  the  Semites.  And  that 
dialects  were  in  use  among  the  Hebrews  we  know  from 
the  fact  that  in  ancient  times  the  Ephraimitic  pronuncia- 
tion differed  from  that  of  the  GUeadites.  The  Gileadites 
said  Shibboleth,  the  Ephraimites  said  Sibboleth.'  This 
change  from  sh  to  s  is  common  between  the  Babylonian 
and  the  Assyrian,  and  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Arabic. 
It  indicates  that  dialectic  differences  existed  between  the 
east-Jordanic  tribes  and  the  tribe  of  Ephraim. 

Further,  it  can  be  shown  that  some  of  the  tribes  used 
Hebrew  words  in  quite  different  senses  from  those  given 
them  by  other  tribes.  Thus,  e.  g.,  Ish-bosheth  and  Mephi- 
bosheth  in  the  Benjaminite  dialect  correspond  to  Ish-baal 

I  Judges  12:6. 


6o  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

and  Meri-baal  in  the  Jemsalemite  dialect.  Although 
Bosheth  means  otherwise  "shame"  or  "confusion," 
among  the  Benjaminites  it  was  used  for  Baal,  meaning 
"lord"  or  "master."' 

Again,  we  know  of  a  Galilean  dialect  at  the  time  of 
Christ.^  This  dialect  existed,  in  all  probability,  from 
very  early  times.  The  Song  of  Deborah,^  the  Book  of 
Jonah,  and  the  Song  of  Songs  are  all  of  Galilean  origin, 
and  the  peculiarities  of  style  in  them  should  be  explained 
as  peculiarities  of  the  Galilean  dialect,  rather  than  as 
"Aramaisms."  Their  use  of  sh  for  the  relative  pronoun, 
instead  of  the  Hebrew  asher,  is  not  an  Aramaism  at  all. 
The  Aramaic  uses  invariably  d  for  the  relative.  The 
sh  shows  relationship  with  the  Phoenician  s  or  asse,  and 
is  doubtless  a  mark  of  the  ancient  Galilean  dialect. 

It  is,  therefore,  more  than  possible  that  a  certain  docu- 
ment may  have  been  the  property  of  some  one  tribe,  speak- 
ing its  own  dialect.  The  peculiarities  of  vocabulary  and 
style  of  a  document  may  then  be  ascribed  to  the  peculiar 
dialect  of  the  tribe  which  owned  it.  And  if  this  is  the  case 
we  have  in  the  language  of  the  documents  no  criterion  ivhat- 
ever  of  the  comparative  ages  of  those  documents.  The 
differences  in  language  and  expression  between  the  D  and 
P  documents,  then,  furnish  absolutely  no  evidence  in 
regard  to  the  date  of  the  P  document. 

Dialect  of  Levi 

To  what  dialect  are  we  to  assign  P  ?  The  document 
and  code  is  a  product  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood.  The 
language,  therefore,  is  naturally  the  language  of  the  priests. 

'  Cf.  I  Sam.  20:30,  where  the  same  word  is  used  by  Saul,  the  Benjaminite. 

2  Mark  14:70;  Luke  22:59;  23:6;  Acts  2:7. 

3  Judges,  chap.  5. 


DIALECT  OF  LEVI  6i 

Now  the  Aaronic  priests  form  a  clan  of  the  tribe  of  Levi. 
The  language  of  the  P  code,  then,  it  would  seem,  is  that 
of  the  tribe  of  Levi.  The  language  of  the  Toledoth  Book 
is  closely  related  to  that  of  the  P  document  proper,  and  is 
therefore  also  to  be  assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Levi.  Its 
minor  differences  from  the  rest  of  P  indicate  only  a  differ- 
ent age  in  the  development  of  the  dialect.  In  this  case  we 
must  assume  that  it  is  the  older  of  the  two.  The  prophet 
Ezekiel  was  also  a  priest,  perhaps  of  the  Zadokite  family. 
His  language  would  then  be  that  of  the  Levitical  tribe. 
This  explains  sufficiently  the  connection  and  similarity 
between  his  prophecies  and  the  P  document.  The  differ- 
ences between  them  are  equally  well  accounted  for,  by 
the  assumption  that  Ezekiel's  language  shows  a  later  and 
more  disintegrated  stage  in  the  development  of  the  Leviti- 
cal dialect.  Ezra  and  Malachi  belonged  to  this  same 
tribe  of  Levi,  and  both  their  affinity  with  the  P  language 
and  their  evidences  of  disintegration  receive  adequate 
explanation. 

If  this  assigning  of  the  P  document  to  the  dialect  of 
Levi  is  correct,  other  phenomena  of  this  document  can 
more  easily  be  explained.  The  religious  institutions, 
for  instance,  mentioned  in  the  P  code,  may  then  rest  on 
the  traditions  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  the  P  code  may  be 
looked  upon  as  the  product  of  the  religious  development 
of  that  tribe.  As  the  Levites  in  D,  and  the  sons  of  Aaron 
with  Levites  in  P,  were  put  in  charge  of  the  worship  and 
the  sanctuary,  we  would  expect  that  the  traditions  and 
laws  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  would  exert  a  most  pronounced 
influence  upon  the  thought  and  literature  of  all  Hebrew 
tribes  that  came  to  worship  at  the  sanctuaries  where  they 
officiated. 


62  THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

In  view  of  all  these  facts  the  most  reasonable  way  to 
account  for  the  linguistic  peculiarities  of  the  P  document 
is  to  assign  the  document  to  the  dialect  and  to  the  religious 
conceptions,  not  of  the  exilic,  the  post-exilic,  or  any  other 
period,  but  rather  of  a  particular  tribe,  the  tribe  of  Levi. 


CHAPTER  V 

Conclusions  in  Regard  to  the  P  Document 

In  view  of  the  facts  that  we  have  adduced  in  the  three 
previous  chapters,  the  following  conclusions  in  regard  to 
the  P  document  have  been  deduced: 

Early  Date  of  P 

In  regard  to  the  document's  date,  we  have  found  that 
it  cannot  be  assigned  either  to  the  exilic  or  the  post-exilic 
periods,  that  it  was  in  part  the  basis  of  the  reform  of 
Josiah,  621  B.  c,  that  it  was  appealed  to  in  the  time  of 
Hezekiah,  ca.  700  b.  c,  and  was  well  known  to  the  pro- 
phets of  that  time,  Amos  and  Isaiah,  that  it  was  the  basis 
of  a  missionary  propaganda  by  the  Levites  in  the  time  of 
Jehoshaphat,  ca.  873  b.  c,  that  it  was  well  knowm  to  his 
father,  Asa,  that  Solomon  and  even  David  worshiped  on 
the  basis  of  its  ritual,  and  finally,  that  Saul  carried  out  a 
reform  on  the  basis  of  its  laws.  The  conclusion  seemed 
inevitable  that  the  P  document  and  code  existed  in  a 
written  form  as  early  as  the  time  of  Saul  and  Samuel. 

Documents  of  P 

We  have  further  pointed  out  that  the  P  document,  as 
embodied  in  our  Hexateuch,  has  no  claim  to  be  regarded 
either  as  complete  or  as  a  unit — admitting  that  the  Docu- 
mentary Hypothesis  is  correct.  Here  and  there  it  is  only 
fragmentary,  and  so  fragmentary  that  it  gives  no  sense 
if  read  by  itself.  We  found  that  it  contains  doublets,  in 
the  genealogies  of  the  sons  of  Shem  and  of  the  sons  of 

63 


64       CONCLUSIONS  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  P  DOCUMENT 

Jacob,  and  in  its  statements  regarding  the  wives  of  Esau. 
Our  conclusion  from  these  premises  was  that  the  P  docu- 
ment, as  we  have  it,  is  only  a  collection  of  fragments.  A 
consideration  of  the  Toledoth  Book,  with  its  distinguishing 
marks,  confirmed  us  in  this  conclusion. 

Language  of  P 

Again,  in  considering  the  language  of  the  document, 
we  found  that  certain  sections  differed  in  vocabulary  and 
phraseology,  as  well  as  in  characteristic  formulas,  from 
other  portions.  We  saw  that  this  phenomenon  ran 
through  all  of  Genesis  and  parts  of  Exodus  and  Leviticus. 
Analyzing  these  sections,  we  found  that  we  had  in  them 
fragments  of  an  old  Toledoth  Book,  and  that  in  addition 
to  this  there  w^as  in  P  another  document,  known  in  the  Old 
Testament  as  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh,  or,  more 
briefly,  as  the  Law  oj  Yahweh.  We  considered  further 
the  peculiarities  of  the  Toledoth  Book  and  of  this  other 
document  or  documents,  comparing  them  with  the  later 
priestly  writings,  and  this  led  us  to  conclude  that  these  pe- 
culiarities pointed  to  a  literary  product  of  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
written  in  that  tribe's  dialect,  and  further,  that  the  laws 
and  institutions  of  our  P  collections  were  the  property, 
and  were  based  upon  the  traditions,  of  the  people  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi.  From  all  these  considerations,  we  conclu- 
ded that  the  peculiarities  of  the  P  document  could  best 
be  accounted  for  by  assigning  them,  not  to  the  exilic  or 
post-exilic  periods,  but  to  this  particular  tribe  of  Levi. 


CHAPTER  VI 

The  Date  of  the  D  Document 
A.     EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE 

Critical  scholars  who  believe  in  the  Development 
Hypothesis,  and  several  scholars  of  the  old  school,  agree 
that  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  was  the  law-book  found  in 
the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah,  622-621  b.  c.  It  is  a  part 
of  the  Critical  Hypothesis  that  the  D  document  is  older 
than  the  P  document.  And  all  internal  evidence  seems 
to  point  that  way. '  In  regard  to  the  date  for  D  just  given, 
however,  we  must  remember  that  the  Bible  states,  not  that 
D  was  then  composed,  but  merely  that  then  the  book  was 
"found  in  the  temple."^ 

I.     Finding  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy 

Before  entering  upon  the  question  of  the  real  date  of 
D,  let  us  briefly  review  the  story  of  the  finding  of  the  Book 
of  the  Law  of  Moses  in  the  temple  in  the  eighteenth  year 
of  Josiah. 

It  seems  that  King  Josiah  had  ordered  some  repairs  of 
the  temple  to  be  carried  out  under  the  direction  of  Hilkiah, 
the  high-priest.  One  day  the  king  sent  his  scribe,  Shaphan 
with  an  order  to  Hilkiah  to  count  the  money  that  had  been 
taken  in  at  the  doors  of  the  temple,  and  to  pay  it  over  to 
the  workmen,  namely,  the  carpenters,  builders,  and 
masons,  and  to  buy,  too,  timbers  and  hewn  stones  with 

1  In  religion,  institutions,  etc.,  but  not  necessarily  in  language.  The 
Toledoth  Book,  however,  is  seemingly  as  old  as  D. 

2  II  Kings  22:8. 

65 


66  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCOIEXT 

which  to  repair  the  breaches  of  the  temple.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  repairs  were  already  under  way. 
Certainly,  the  workmen  had  to  be  paid.  When  Shaphan 
came  to  the  temple,  HHkiah  informed  him  in  the  following 
words,  "I  have  found  the  Book  of  the  Law  in  the  house 
of  God.'"  Hilkiah  then  gave  the  book  to  Shaphan  and 
he  read  it.  On  his  return  to  the  palace.  Shaphan  told 
the  king  of  his  discover}',  and  read  the  book  before  him. 
WTien  the  king  had  heard  the  words  of  the  book,  he  rent 
his  clothes,  and  ordered  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan  and  two 
other  men  to  go  and  inquire  from  Yahweh  in  regard  to 
the  contents  of  the  book.  These  men  went  to  the  prophet- 
ess Hulda  and  communed  with  her.  She  answered  and 
told  them,  ''Thus  says  Yahweh,  Behold  I  will  bring  evil 
upon  this  place,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  thereof,  even 
all  the  words  of  the  book  which  the  king  of  Judah  has  read : 
because  they  have  forsaken  me,  and  have  burned  incense 
unto  other  gods,  that  they  might  provoke  me  to  anger  with 
all  the  work  of  their  hands.  "^  Wlien  the  king  heard  the 
answer  from  the  prophetess,  he  gathered  the  elders  of 
Judah  and  of  Jerusalem  to  the  tem.ple  and  read  there  in 
their  ears,  "all  the  words  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
which  was  found  in  the  house  of  Yahweh,"^  The  Book 
of  Kings  then  continues,  saving,  "And  like  unto  him  there 
was  no  king  before  him  that  turned  to  Yahweh,  with  all 
his  heart,  and  with  all  his  soul,  and  with  all  his  might, 
according  to  all  the  Law  of  Moses."-* 

This  book,  thus  found,  is  referred  to  as  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant^  and  the  Lan'  of  Moses.     In  the  reforms  by 

1  II  Kings  22:  S.  3  II  Kings  23:2. 

2  II  Kings  22:16,  17.  4  II  Kings  23:25. 

s  So  called  because  it  contained  the  "Ten  Words,"  or  Decalogue  (Deut., 
chap.  5.) 


REFORMS  OF  JOSL\H  67 

him  undertaken  it  is  fair  to  assume  that  Josiah  was  guided 
by  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  for  there  are  specific  refer- 
ences in  this  book  on  which  he  could  have  based  his 
reforms. 

II.     Reforms  of  Josiah 

a)  Josiah  destroyed  all  the  vessels  made  for  the  wor- 
ship of  the  host  of  Heaven.'  The  law  forbidding  this 
worship  is  found  in  Deut.  17:3. 

b)  He  destroyed  the  Asherah  in  the  house  of  Yahweh.^ 
The  law  on  Asherah  worship  is  found  in  Deut.  16: 21,  22. 

c)  Josiah  broke  down  the  house  of  devotees.^  The 
law  on  devotees  is  found  in  Deut.  23:17. 

i\ttention  has  often  been  drawn  by  the  critical  scholars 
to  the  fact  that  Josiah  destroyed  the  "high-places"  of 
Judah.^  Now  it  is  true  that  Deut.,  chap.  12,  forbids 
idolatry,  but,  to  be  precise,  we  must  observe  that  in  this 
chapter  the  word  ''high-place"  does  not  occur.  Nor  does 
it  occur  in  any  other  place  in  Deuteronomy.  As  we  stated 
above,  the  law  on  high-places  is  in  Leviticus. 

It  has  also  been  emphasized  by  modem  critics  that 
Josiah  refers  to  the  "abominations"  of  Judah,^  and  that 
this  is  peculiarly  a  Deuteronomic  expression.  They 
have  thereby  attempted  to  show  that  Deuteronomy  exclu- 
sively was  the  basis  of  the  reform  of  Josiah.  Now  it  is 
true  that  the  word  "abomination"  occurs  some  eighteen 
times  in  Deuteronomy,  and  some  sixteen  times  in  the 
original  code  of  Deuteronomy,  but  it  must  not  be  forgotten 
that  the  P  code  in  Leviticus  uses  the  same  term  not  less 
than  sLx  times.  The  term  is  not,  therefore,  exclusively 
the  property  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is  impossible  to  base 
any  argument  on  this  term. 

I  II  Kings  23:4.  3  II  Kings  23:7.  s  II  Kings  23:24. 

'  II  Kings  23 : 6.  •*  II  Kings  22 : 8. 


68  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Josiah's 
reforms  were  based,  in  the  greater  number  of  cases,  on 
laws  found,  not  in  D,  but  in  P.  Nevertheless,  the  fact 
remains  that  in  certain  of  his  reforms  he  enforced  laws 
found  solely  in  Deuteronomy.  From  this  we  must  con- 
clude that  D  is  at  least  as  old  as  his  time. 

III.     D  Not  Written  in  Time  of  Josiah 

But  modern  critics  go  farther  than  this  and  assume  that 
the  book  was  written  at  this  time,  or,  at  the  earliest,  in  the 
time  of  Manassch,  or,  possibly,  Hezekiah.  But  there  is 
no  reason  to  believe  that  such  a  book  should  have  been 
composed  in  the  times  of  the  idolatrous  Manasseh.  It  is 
equally  improbable  that  it  was  composed  in  the  time  of 
Hezekiah.  For  why  should  a  man  go  to  the  trouble  to 
write  a  book,  only  to  lay  it  away  in  a  corner  of  the  temple 
where  perhaps  it  might  by  chance  be  found,  a  century 
after  it  was  written?  There  remains,  then,  to  be  con- 
sidered, the  hypothesis  that  it  was  composed  in  the  time 
of  Josiah,  at  the  time  of  its  supposed  discovery. 

There  is  not  a  single  statement  in  the  Bible  that  can 
be  used  as  the  basis  for  such  a  belief.  Indeed,  such  a 
hypothesis  is  at  complete  variance  with  the  facts  as  there 
set  forth,  unless  we  are  to  suppose  that  Hilkiah  or  some 
of  his  friends  deliberately  forged  the  book,  and  that  this 
fact  was  completely  unknown,  indeed  unsuspected, 
both  by  the  king  and  by  the  author  of  the  Book  of 
Kings. 

It  is  true  that  we  are  told  by  many  critics  that  for  a 
man  to  write  a  book  himself,  and  then  to  claim  that  it  was 
written  by  an  ancient  author,  somewhat  in  the  fashion  of 
the  author  of  the  Book  of  Mormon,  would  not  have  been 


D  AND  JOSIAH'S  REFORM  69 

considered  dishonorable  in  those  days,  as  it  is  in  ours. 
But  those  who  advance  these  views  have  yet  to  adduce  an 
instance  from  the  records  of  ancient  times  of  such  an 
imposture  being  perpetrated  and  the  action  being  justified. 
The  assumption  has  originated  solely  in  their  imaginations. 
It  is  absurd  to  claim  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  that 
book  of  highly  exalted  moral  claims,  could  have  lent  him- 
self to  such  dishonesty. 

Furthermore,  is  it  not  remarkable  that  King  Josiah, 
the  scribe  Shaphan,  and  the  prophetess  Hulda  could  all 
of  them  have  been  so  completely  deceived  as  to  believe 
and  claim  that  this  was  in  very  truth  the  Law  of  Moses, 
which  the  predecessors  of  the  king  had  disobeyed  ?  It  is 
impossible  to  believe  that  such  a  book  would  have  been 
accepted  without  the  most  severe  scrutiny  by  both  the 
civil  and  the  ecclesiastical  authorities.  And  yet  they  all 
pronounced  it  a  genuine  discovery  of  an  older  law.  The 
imposture  hypothesis  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable, 
when  examined  with  the  usual  care  used  in  historical 
investigation. 

B.     INTERNAL  EVIDENCE 
I.     D  and  Josiah's  Reform 

In  the  conclusion  just  reached,  that  the  D  code  was 
not  written  in  Josiah's  time,  we  are  supported  by  the  inter- 
nal evidence.  For  if  it  had  been,  there  would  have  been 
contained  in  it  laws  designed  to  fit  the  conditions  prevalent 
in  that  time.  This  is  not  the  case  in  at  least  the  following 
instances : 

a)  Josiah  deposed  the  idolatrous  priests  known  by  the 
name  of  Chemarim. '     These  priests  were  known  as  early 

I  II  Kings  23:5. 


70  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

as  the  days  of  Hosea,'  and  had  been  ordained  by  the 
kings  of  Judah.  But  Deuteronomy  does  not  know  of 
the  existence  of  any  such  sort  of  priests,  akhough  it 
takes  great  pains  to  enumerate  different  kinds  of 
idolatrous  priests. 

b)  Josiah  drove  out  the  womiCn  that  wove  hangings 
for  Asherah.^  But  Deuteronomy  does  not  know  of  the 
existence  of  any  such  women. 

c)  Josiah  broke  down  the  high-places  of  the  satyrs.^ 
But  Deuteronomy  has  no  law  on  satyr- worship.  P,  as 
we  have  seen,  is  the  only  code  which  mentions  it.* 

d)  Josiah  permitted  the  priests  of  the  high-places  of 
Judah  to  get  their  portion  of  unleavened  bread  from  the 
temiple  in  Jerusalem.^  The  law  on  this,  too,  is  found,  not 
in  D,  but  only  in  P.^ 

e)  Josiah  forbade  Molech- worship. '^  Deuteronomy 
does  not  mention  Molech  once,  although  it  forbids  passing 
children  through  the  fire.^  It  is  the  P  code  which  men- 
tions Molech  and  forbids  his  worship.' 

/)  Josiah  took  away  the  horses  of  the  Sun,  which  the 
kings  of  Judah  had  given. '°  Deuteronomy  has  no  law  on 
the  subject. 

g)  The  high-places  near  by  Jerusalem,  dedicated  by 
Solomon  to  Ashtoreth,  Chemosh,  and  Milcom,  were 
destroyed  by  Josiah."  These  gods  are  not  mentioned 
in  Deuteronomy. 

h)  Josiah  destroyed  the  high-place  at  Bethel,  built  by 

I  II  Kings  10:5.     Cf.  Zeph.  1:4.  2  II  Kings  23:7. 

3  II  Kings  23:8,  where  we  should  read  "satyrs"  instead  of  "gates."  The 
change  involves  only  a  slight  alteration  in  punctuating  the  Massoretic  text. 

4  Lev.  17:7.  7  II  Kings  23: 10.  1°  II  Kings  23: 11. 
5 II  Kings  23:9.  "^  Deut.  18: 10.  "  II  Kings  23: 13. 
6  Lev.  6:14  ff.               9  Lev.  18:21;  2o:2ff. 


D  AND  THE  AGE  OF  JOSIAH  71 

Jeroboam  I.'  As  we  have  seen,  Deuteronomy  has  no 
law  on  high-places. ' 

i)  Josiah  defiled  the  sepulchres  at  Bethel,  where  the 
Northern  Kingdom  had  offered  ancestor  worship  at  the 
gravestones.^  Deuteronomy  does  not  prohibit  or  even 
mention  ancestor  worship. 

j)  Josiah  forbade  the  Teraphim  worship.^  Deuter- 
onomy knows  nothing  of  Teraphim. 

II.     D  and  the  Age  of  Josiah 

Furthermore,  Deuteronomy  does  contain  laws  which 
could  not  have  applied  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  laws  of  which 
he  took  absolutely  no  notice. 

a)  There  is  in  Deuteronomy  an  injunction  to  destroy 
Canaanites"*  and  Amalekites.^  But  neither  of  these 
nations  existed  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  nor  had  they  existed 
for  three  hundred  years  before  him. 

b)  Deuteronomy  has  precise  rules  for  military  service,^ 
for  besieging  foreign  cities,^  and  for  the  arrangement  of 
the  camp,^  all  of  them  utterly  unsuitable  for  the  time  of 
Josiah. 

c)  Deuteronomy  warns  the  Israelites  against  choosing 
a  foreigner  for  their  king.^  This  would  be,  to  say  the 
least,  needless,  when  the  house  of  David,  to  which  Josiah 
belonged,  had  reigned  almost  four  hundred  years. 

d)  Deuteronomy  cultivates  a  warm  friendship  for 
Esau.'°    It  does  not  mention  Edom"  once.     Now  Edom 

I  II  Kings  23:15.  ^  Deut.  20:1-9. 

3  II  Kings  23:16-20.  7  Deut.  20:9-15,  19,  20. 

3  II  Kings  23:24.  *  Deut.  23:10-14. 

4  Deut.  7:1,  2;  20:17,  18.  9  Deut.  17:15,  16. 
s  Deut.  25:17-19.                            1°  Deut.  2:2-8. 

II  It  mentions  "  Edomite  "  once  (23:  7),  which  shows  that  the  Edomites  were 
then  entering  Mount  Seir,  but  had  not  yet  dispossessed  Esau  of  his  land. 


72  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

had  driven  away  Esau  long  before  Josiah's  time.  In  his 
time  the  prophet  Jeremiah'  denounces  Edom,  as  do  Oba- 
diah,  Joel,^  and  Isaiah.^  And  even  if,  as  some  suppose, 
Edom  and  Esau  are  to  be  considered  as  two  names  for 
one  people,  there  was  not  a  people  more  hated  in  Judah 
in  Josiah's  time  than  were  the  Edomites. 

e)  Deuteronomy  enjoins  the  Israelites  to  destroy  the 
Anakim/  Joshua  and  Caleb  really  destroyed  them.^ 
They  are  not  known  to  have  existed  from  that  time  onward. 
On  the  contrary  Deuteronomy  does  not  once  mention  the 
Philistines,  who  for  450  years  before  Josiah  had  been 
harassing  the  Israelites  and  who  w^re  still  a  thorn  in  their 
side. 

In  these  first  two  sections  of  the  internal  evidence  we 
have  seen  that  Deuteronomy  agrees  neither  in  what  it 
does  contain  nor  in  what  it  does  not  contain  with  the  con- 
ditions prevalent  in  the  time  of  Josiah.  As  the  book  could 
not  have  been  written  later  than  his  time,  we  must  look 
farther  back  to  discover  its  origin. 

III.     D  and  Early  History  of  Israel 

Some  conservative  modern  critics  concede  that  the 
institutions  and  the  laws  contained  in  our  Deuteronomy 
may  have  existed  for  some  time  before  the  age  of  Josiah, 
but  they  maintain  that  these  laws  were  not  codified  until 
his  time.  We  can  find  strong  evidence,  however,  to  the 
contrary. 

a)  In  II  Kings  14:6  we  read,  "But  the  children  of  the 
murderers  he  (Amaziah)  put  not  to  death:  according  to 
that  which  is  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  as 

1  Jer.  49:8.  4Deut.  1:28;  (2:10,  11,  21;  9:2.) 

2  Joel  3: 19.  s  Josh.  11:21,  22;  14:12-15. 

3  Isa.  63 : 1-6. 


D  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  ISRAEL  73 

Yahweh  commanded,  saying,  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put 
to  death  for  the  children,  nor  the  children  be  put  to  death 
for  the  fathers;  but  every  man  shall  die  for  his  own  sin." 
The  last  part  of  this  passage  is  an  exact  quotation  from 
Deuteronomy. '     The  passage  has  been  explained  as  a  late 
addition  to  the  Book  of  Kings  by  the  Deuteronomic  editor. 
But  the  fact  remains  that  Amaziah  did  not  put  the  children 
of  the  murderers  to  death,  which  was  contrary  to  the  usual 
procedure  in  those  times.     He  must,  therefore  have  had 
a  law  which  restrained  him.     All  traditions  would  have 
encouraged  him  to  kill  them.     Furthermore  the  editor  of 
Kings  claimis  that  Amaziah  followed  the  written  law  of 
the  Book  of  Moses.     If  such  a  book  did  not  exist  in  the 
time  of  Amaziah,  our  author  of  Kings  has  told  a  plain 
untruth.       That  he  has  done  so  remains  to  be  proved. 
The  author  of  Kings  refers  again  and  again  to  a  number 
of  books  or  documents  which  he  used  in  compiling  his 
history  of  the  kings  of  Judah  and  Israel.     No  one  has  as 
yet  been  able  to  show  that  he  falsified  his  material.     What 
errors  there  are  seem  to  have  been  in  his  sources.     Nor 
has  it  been  shown  that  these  source-documents  were  non- 
existent.    Fair-minded  scholarship  accepts  their  existence 
in  his  time,  and  acknowledges  that  he  made  use  of  them. 
Now  this  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses  was  really  one  of  these 
documents,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  author 
is  correct  here,  as  in  other  places,  in  his  statement  of  the 
source  of  his  quotation. 

The  authenticity  of  this  passage  is  made  still  more  plain, 
however,  when  we  compare  it  with  the  Book  of  Chronicles. 
We  know  that  the  source  used  by  the  author  of  the  Book 
of  Kings  for  the  reign  of  Amaziah  was  a  book  called,  The 

I  Deut.  24:16. 


74 


THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 


Chronicles  oj  the  Kings  oj  Judah. '  The  Book  of  Chronicles 
for  this  same  period  uses  another  authority,  namely,  The 
Book  of  the  Kings  oj  Judah  and  Israel.  ^  Yet  the  statement 
in  Chronicles^  is  identical  with  that  quoted  from  Kings, 
and  here  again  there  is  the  reference  to  the  law  in  the  Book 
of  Moses.  Critics  are  agreed  in  saying  that  the  editor 
of  Chronicles  neither  had  Deuteronomic  tendencies  nor 
used  Deuteronomic  materials.  We  have,  then,  in  Chron- 
icles, true  corroboration  of  Kings  in  the  statement  that 
Amaziah  refrained  from  killing  the  children  of  the  mur- 
derers because  of  a  written  law,  a  law  which  we  know  to 
be  contained  only  in  Deuteronomic  legislation. 

b)  In  I  Kings,  chap.  8,  we  have  the  prayer  which  Solo- 
mon offered  at  the  consecration  of  the  temple.  It  not 
only  breathes  the  spirit  of  Deuteronomy  through  and 
through,  but  its  very  phraseology  from  verse  to  verse  is 
that  of  Deuteronomy.  Compare  the  characteristic  phrases 
in  the  following,  for  example : 

10:15 


I  Kings  8 

24 

and  Deut.  8: 18;  i 

.8 

23 

a 

4:39 

8 

25 

i: 

chap. 15 

8 

27 

iC 

10: 14 

8 

32 

iC 

25:1 

8 

33 

a 

28:25 

8 

35 

a 

11:17 

8 

37 

'< 

28:22,38 

8 

37 

a 

28:52 

8 

40 

a 

12:1;  31 

13 


I  II  Kings  14:18. 

'  Of  course  the  Chronicles  referred  to  in  II  Kings  14:  i8  is  not  our  Book  of 
Chronicles,  nor  is  the  Book  of  Kings  referred  to  in  Chronicles  our  book  of 
that  name.  Both  references  are  to  earlier  documents  used  by  the  authors.  See 
II  Chron.  25:26. 

3  II  Chron.  25:4. 


D  AND  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  ISRAEL  75 

I  Kings  8:41  and  Deut.  29:21 


8:42 

8:43 
8:44 
8:46 

8:47 
8:48 


11:  2 

28: 10 

21: 10;  20: I 
7:2,  23;  23:14 
30:1 
30:2 


Modern  critics  assume,  of  course,  that  the  Deuteron- 
omic  author  of  our  Kings  modeled  this  beautiful  prayer  as 
he  wished,  according  to  the  tenets  of  the  Deuteronomic 
code,  and  that  it  is  not  at  all  the  one  which  Solomon 
really  offered.  Of  course  Solomon  must  have  offered 
some  prayer  at  the  consecration  of  the  temple.  Again 
the  charge  brought  against  the  author  of  Kings  is  one  of 
falsifying  records.  But  in  this  case,  as  in  the  one  just 
discussed,  the  fallacy  of  such  a  charge  becomes  apparent 
when  we  compare  the  record  of  the  event  contained  in 
Chronicles.  In  II  Chron.,  chap.  6,  the  same  prayer  is 
given  as  is  contained  in  I  Kings,  chap.  8,  exactly  the  same, 
not  only  in  thought,  but  even  in  mode  of  expression.* 
Again,  we  must  emphasize  the  fact  that  the  author  of 
Chronicles  is  not  accused  of  having  had  Deuteronomic 
leanings.  Now  the  author  of  Kings  gives  as  his  authority 
in  compiling  his  history  of  Solomon,  The  Book  of  the  Acts 
of  Solomon.^  The  author  of  Chronicles  gives  as  his 
authorities  for  the  same  period  the  following:  The  History 
of  Nathan  the  Prophet,  The  Prophecy  of  Ahijah  the  Shi- 
lonite,  and  The  Visions  of  Iddo  the  Seer.^  If  then  from 
his  source  the  author  of  Kings  derived  a  prayer  of  Solomon 

1  There  are  a  few  unimportant  differences,  such  as  the  omission  of  an 
"and"  or  of  an  article,  but  there  are  none  which  would  not  be  natural  between 
two  copies  made  by  different  hands  from  one  and  the  same  original. 

2  I  Kings  11:41.  3  II  Chron.  9:29. 


76  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

exactly  the  same,  even  in  language,  as  that  derived  by  the 
editor  of  Chronicles  from  his  three  quite  different  sources, 
it  seems  indisputable  that  this  prayer  given  by  both  is  the 
product  of  neither,  but  that  it  is  derived  from  contemporary 
records  made  at  the  time  the  prayer  was  delivered — in  other 
words,  that  it  is  actually  the  prayer  which  Solomon 
offered. 

But  there  are  some  critics  who  maintain  that  this  prayer 
was  merely  the  product  of  certain  Deuteronomic  tenden- 
cies or  traditions  which  were  indeed  current  in  Solomon's 
time,  but  which  were  not  written  down  until  the  time  of 
Josiah.  How,  though,  can  those  who  hold  this  view 
explain  the  fact  that  this  prayer  of  Solomon  exhibits  not 
only  the  thought,  but  also  the  language,  of  that  written 
Deuteronomy  which  we  know  ? 

Rack  in  Solomon's  time,  then,  the  code  of  Deuteronomy 
certainly  seems  to  have  been  extant,  and  that  in  a  written, 
definite  form. 

IV.     "Law  of  Moses" 

We  have  already  noticed  that  in  II  Kings  23:  25  there  is 
a  reference  to  the  Law  of  Moses.  We  found,  as  indeed  is 
admitted  by  everyone,  that  the  phrase  there  referred  to 
Deuteronomy,  which  was  supposed  to  have  been  found  in 
the  temple  just  at  that  time.  Again,  in  both  Kings  and 
Chronicles  we  found  that  Amaziah's  sparing  of  the  children 
of  the  murderers  was  due  to  a  law  contained  in  the  Book 
0}  the  Law  0}  Moses.  And  in  this  case,  too,  we  found  that 
the  reference  was  to  Deuteronomy.  These  facts  point 
to  a  belief  that  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses  was  the  tech- 
nical term  for  Deuteronomy.  Let  us  see  what  other 
references  there  are  which  point  the  same  way. 


"LAW  OF  MOSES"  77 

First,  in  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  itself,'  we  read, 
*' Beyond  Jordan,  in  the  land  of  Moab,  began  Moses  to 
declare  this  law,"  and  again, ^  ''And  this  is  the  law  which 
Moses  set  before  the  children  of  Israel;  these  are  the 
testimonies  and  the  statutes  and  the  judgments  which 
Moses  spake  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  when  they  came 
forth  out  of  Egypt,  beyond  Jordan,  in  the  valley  over 
against  Beth-Peor."  These  words  are  taken  from  the 
introduction  to  the  code.  In  chap.  28,  which  is  the  con- 
clusion of  the  code  and  an  inseparable  part  of  the  same, 
we  read, 3  "If  thou  wilt  not  observe  to  do  all  the  words  of 
this  law,  that  are  written  in  this  book,^^  and  again,'*  "Also 
every  sickness,  and  every  plague,  which  is  not  written  in 
the  book  of  this  law,  them  will  Yahweh  bring  upon  thee 
until  thou  be  destroyed."  Here,  then,  Moses  asserts 
that  he  himself  has  written  this  book,  for  as  the  introduc- 
tion tells  us,  all  these  are  the  words  which  Moses  purports 
to  speak. 

Chaps.  29-31  are  not  a  portion  of  the  original  D  code, 
but  are  contemporary  with  it,  and  may  possibly  be  sup- 
posed to  have  been  written  by  Joshua.  Here  we  read,^ 
"These  are  the  words  of  the  covenant  which  Yahweh 
commanded  Moses  to  make  with  the  children  of  Israel, 
in  the  land  of  Moab,  besides  the  covenant  which  he  made 
with  them  in  Horeb."  The  author  then  continues,  and 
says,^  "And  Moses  wrote  this  law  and  delivered  it  unto 
the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi,  which  bare  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant  of  Yahweh,  and  unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel." 
And  again, ^  "And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Moses  had  made 

iDeut.i:5.  4Deut.  28:61.  ^Deut.  31:9. 

2  Deut.  4:44.  5  Deut.  29:1.  7  Deut.  31:24-26. 

3Deut.  28:58. 


78  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in  a  book,  until 
they  were  finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the  Levites, 
which  bare  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  Yahweh,  saying, 
Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  by  the  side  of  the 
Covenant  of  Yahweh  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for 
a  witness  against  thee."  We  can  easily  see  how,  from 
these  passages  in  Deuteronomy,  the  name  Law  of  Moses, 
might  easily  and  naturally  come  into  use  as  the  title  of 
the  work.  This  is  especially  true  when  we  consider  that 
in  no  other  code  is  A'loses  put  forward  as  the  author  of 
the  law-book.  In  other  codes  we  are  told  either  that 
Yahweh  himself  wrote  the  laws,  or  that  Moses  proclaimed 
them  in  Yahweh's  name.  But  in  D  we  are  specifically 
informed  that  Moses  himself  wrote  and  promulgated 
them.  What  more  natural,  therefore,  than  that  the  tech- 
nical term,  Law  of  Moses,  should  have  been  applied  to  the 
D  code,  just  as  we  found  Laiv  of  Yahweh  to  be  the  technical 
term  for  the  P  code  ? 

But  by  further  references  this  assumption  can  almost 
certainly  be  proved. 

a)  In  Josh.  1:7,8,  we  are  told  that  Yahweh  committed 
to  Joshua  the  charge  of  being  the  successor  of  INIoses  with 
the  words,  "Only  be  strong,  and  very  courageous,  to 
observe  to  do  according  to  all  the  law  which  Moses,  my 
servant,  commanded  thee:  turn  not  from  it  to  the  right 
hand  or  to  the  left,  that  thou  mayest  deal  wisely  whither- 
soever thou  goest.  This  book  of  the  law  shall  not  depart 
out  of  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt  meditate  therein  day  and 
night,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  according  to  all  that 
is  written  therein."  Here  we  find  that  Joshua  received 
in  charge  a  written  book,  called  the  Book  of  the  Law,  of 
which  Moses,  not  Yahweh,  is  given  as  the  author. 


"LAW  OF  MOSES"  79 

b)  When  Joshua  had  finished  the  subjection  of  the 
eastern  part  of  the  land,  he  gathered  the  tribes  of  Israel 
to  Mount  Ebal  and  there'  "Joshua  built  an  altar  unto 
Yahweh,  the  God  of  Israel,  in  Mount  Ebal,  as  Moses 
the  servant  of  Yahweh  commanded  the  children  of  Israel, 
as  it  is  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  oj  Moses,  an  altar 
of  unhewn  stones,  upon  which  no  man  had  lifted  up  any 
iron:  and  they  offered  thereon  burnt-offerings  unto 
Yahweh,  and  sacrificed  peace-offerings.  And  he  wrote 
there  upon  the  stones  a  copy  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  which 
he  wrote  in  the  presence  of  the  children  of  Israel."  The 
law  mentioned  as  being  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of 
Moses  is  found  exclusively  in  Deut.  27 : 5-8,  where  we  read 
that  Moses  said,  "And  there  shalt  thou  build  an  altar 
unto  Yahweh  thy  God,  an  altar  of  stones:  thou  shalt  lift 
up  no  iron  upon  them.  Thou  shalt  build  the  altar  of 
Yahweh  thy  God  of  unhewn  stone;  and  thou  shalt  offer 
burnt-offerings  thereon  unto  Yahweh  thy  God,  and  thou 
shalt  sacrifice  peace-offerings,  and  shalt  eat  there;  and 
thou  shalt  rejoice  before  Yahweh  thy  God.  And  thou 
shalt  write  upon  the  stones  all  the  words  of  this  law  very 
plainly."  Here  we  have  then  a  reference  to  the  Book  of 
the  Law  of  Moses  which  plainly  is  a  reference  to  the  Deu- 
teronomic  legislation.^ 

c)  When  Joshua  bade  farewell  to  his  people,  he  said,' 

1  Josh.  8:30-32. 

2  Some  critics  are  inclined  to  regard  Deut.,  chap.  27,  on  which  this  passage 
in  Joshua  is  so  evidently  based,  as  not  an  integral  part  of  the  D  code.  The 
objection  is  based  mainly  on  the  blessings  and  cursings  contained  in  it.  But 
this  is  a  mistaken  notion,  for  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  has  shown  us  that  blessings 
and  curses  were  an  integral  part  of  ancient  codes,  as  a  proper  affirmation  of 
their  tenets.  The  blessings  and  curses  in  this  chapter  in  Deuteronomy  are  a 
necessary  part  of  the  conclusion  of  the  D  code,  just  as  the  threats  in  Leviticus 
(chap.  26)  belong  to  the  conclusion  of  the  P  code. 

3  Josh.  23 : 6. 


8o  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

"Therefore  be  very  courageous  to  keep  and  to  do  all  that 
is  written  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  oj  Moses,  that  ye  turn 
not  aside  therefrom  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left." 
Although  there  is  nothing  in  this  passage  to  point  out  what 
book  it  is  that  is  known  by  this  name,  the  similarity  in 
phraseology  between  this  and  the  passage  from  Joshua 
just  cited  above  makes  the  assumption  justifiable  that 
what  is  referred  to  here  is  the  same  as  that  referred  to  in 
other  parts  of  Joshua,  i.  e.,  the  D  document. 

d)  The  dying  David  charged  his  son,  Solomon,  saying,' 
"Be  thou  strong,  therefore,  and  show  thyself  a  man;  and 
keep  the  charge  of  Yahweh  thy  God  to  walk  in  his  ways, 
to  keep  his  statutes,  his  commandments,  and  his  judg- 
ments, and  his  testimonies,  according  to  that  which  is 
written  in  the  Laiu  of  Moses,  that  thou  mayest  deal  wisely 
in  all  that  thou  doest,  and  whithersoever  thou  turnest 
thyself."  The  tone  of  this  passage  is  decidedly  Deuter- 
onomic,  and  resembles  closely  our  quotation  above  from 
Joshua  1:7.  It  is  worth  remarking  that  the  prayer  which 
Solomon  made  when  he  came  to  dedicate  his  temiple  was, 
as  we  have  seen,  entirely  Deuteronomic.  David,  then, 
knew  of  a  written  Law  oj  Moses,  and  when  he  spoke  of  it 
used  definitely  Deuteronomic  language. 

e)  In  II  Chron.  23:18  we  have  another  reference  to 
the  Law  oj  Moses.  "And  Jehoiada  appointed  the  offices 
of  the  house  of  YahwTh  under  the  hand  of  the  priests  the 
Levites,  whom  David  had  distributed  in  the  house  of 
Yahweh,  to  offer  the  burnt-offerings  of  Yahweh,  as  it  is 
written  in  the  Law  oj  Moses,  with  rejoicing  and  with  sing- 
ing, according  to  the  order  of  David."  The  expression, 
"  the  priests  the  Levites"  is  Deuteronomic,  and  not  priestly 

1  I  Kings  2:  26,  3. 


"LAW  OF  MOSES"  8i 

as  we  might  naturally  expect  in  Chronicles,  the  product 
of  the  priestly  school.  And  these  priests  the  Levites  are 
definitely  said  to  be  fulfilling  their  functions  "  as  it  is  written 
in  the  Law  oj  Moses. ''^  The  identification  of  Deuteronomy 
with  the  Law  of  Moses  seems  to  be  plain  here,  too,  in  the 
reign  of  Joash,  at  the  time  when  he  became  king,  837  b.  c. 

/)  Something  similar  seems  to  be  implied  in  II  Chron. 
30: 16,  where,  at  the  great  Passover  of  Hezekiah,  the  order 
of  the  priests  is  again  referred  to  as  being  "according  to 
the  Law  of  Moses.''^  The  "order"  refers,  of  course,  to 
the  arrangement  made  by  David,  who  divided  the  priests 
into  classes  when  he  established  his  worship  of  Yahweh, 
a  worship  which,  as  we  have  seen  above,  seems  to  have 
been  on  a  Deuteronomic  basis,  or  at  least  worship  around 
"the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,"  an  ark  which,  as  will  be  fully 
shown  later,  belonged  to  the  D  code. 

g)  Further  references  to  the  Law  of  Moses  are  to  be 
found  in  II  Kings  21:8  (the  timiC  of  Manasseh),  Ezra  3:2; 
7:6,  Nehemiah  8:1;  9:14,  Daniel  9:11,  13.  Malachi 
admonishes  the  people,  "Remember  ye  the  Law  of  Moses 
my  servant,  which  I  commanded  unto  him  in  Horeb  for 
all  Israel,  even  statutes  and  judgments."'  A  law  referred 
to  Horeb  would  at  first  glance  seem  to  be  E,  but  the  term 
"statutes  and- judgments"  must  refer  to  D.'  As  late  as 
the  time  of  Malachi,  therefore,  the  term  Law  of  Moses 
seems  to  refer  to  Deuteronomy. 

We  have  thus  seen  that  probably  in  the  time  of  Malachi, 
and  certainly  in  the  times  of  Josiah,  Amaziah,  Joash 
(Jehoiada),  Solomon,  David,  and  Joshua,  that  is  to  say, 
in  every  reference  to  the  Law  of  Moses  where  anything 

1  Mai.  4:4. 

2  Deut.,  chap.  5-1 1,  refers  exclusively  to  the  legislation  at  Horeb  and  the 
events  between  Horeb  and  Moab. 


82  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

at  all  is  implied  as  to  what  is  meant,  there  is  implied  that 
the  law  which  we  call  the  D  code  is  meant.  It  seems  in 
the  highest  degree  probable  that  such  a  book  did  exist 
from  the  time  of  Joshua  down.  And  if  it  existed  this 
early,  as  the  evidence  persuades  us  to  admit,  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  Moses  wrote  the  D  code  at  the  cove- 
nant in  the  land  of  Moab,  just  as  Deuteronomy  itself 
asserts. 

In  concluding  this  section  in  regard  to  the  Law  of  Moses 
just  one  other  fact  needs  to  be  observed.  The  D  code 
ordains,'  "And  it  shall  be,  when  he  [the  king]  sitteth  upon 
the  throne  of  his  kingdom,  that  he  shall  write  him  a  copy 
of  this  law  in  a  book,  out  of  that  which  is  before  the  priests 
the  Levites:  and  it  shall  be  with  him,  and  he  shall  read 
in  it  all  the  days  of  his  life,  that  he  may  learn  to  fear 
Yahweh  his  God,  to  keep  all  the  words  of  this  law,  and 
these  statutes,  to  do  them."  This  explicit  order  to  write 
a  copy  of  the  law  in  a  book  implies  that  the  law  existed 
in  codified  form,  for  a  copy  could  not  be  made  of  mere 
traditions.  If  we  now  turn  to  the  historical  books,  we 
find  that  this  law  was  strictly  obeyed  when  Israel  came 
to  choose  a  king.  As  soon  as  Saul  was  chosen,  and  Samuel 
had  consecrated  him,  Samuel  told  the  people  God's 
ordinance  for  the  kingdom,  and  wrote  it  down  in  a  book, 
which  was  laid  up  before  Yahweh.  ^ 

V.     D  and  the  Central  Sanctuary 

Against  all  these  facts  which  seem  to  argue  for  an  early 
date  for  D,  critics  advance  the  plea  that  D  must  be  late 

■  Deut.  17  :  18,  19. 

2  I  Sam.  10:25.  Instead  of  saying  with  Dr.  Driver  (LOT,  p.  Syf.),  that 
the  Law  of  the  Kingdom  (Deut.  17:142.)  is  colored  by  reminiscences  of  the 
monarchy  of  Solomon,  it  is  equally  possible  to  say  that  the  monarchy  of  Solomon 
reflects  the  Law  in  Deuteronomy. 


D  AND  THE  CENTRAL  SANCTUARY        83 

because  it  is  the  only  code  which  teaches  ''a  central  sanc- 
tuary," by  which  phrase  they  mean  "a  single  sanctuary." 
The  argument  is  that  since  up  to  the  time  of  Josiah  there 
were  many  sanctuaries,  and  it  was  he  who  abolished  them 
all  save  the  one  at  Jerusalem,  D  could  not  have  been  in 
effect  before  his  time.  This  argument  is  based  upon  the 
substitution  in  the  minds  of  the  critics  of  "Jerusalem" 
for  the  phrase  in  Deuteronomy,"  the  place  for  the  dwelling 
of  my  name."  This  argument  seems  at  first  glance  very 
plausible,  but  it  is  not  nearly  so  strong  when  examined 
carefully. 

First  of  all  we  must  observe  that  not  in  one  single 
instance  does  Deuteronomy  mention  Jerusalem,  and  the 
implication  that  it  means  Jerusalem  is  a  reading  into  the 
Bible  of  a  personal  opinion  merely.  It  does  speak,  again 
and  again,  about  the  place  which  Yahweh  shall  choose 
for  causing  his  name  to  dwell  in.  But  that  place  may  be 
anywhere.  And,  as  we  know,  it  was  moved  about  to 
different  places  up  to  the  time  of  David.  In  the  time  of 
the  Judges  the  principal  sanctuary  certainly  moved  about 
from  place  to  place.  Yahweh' s  oracle  to  Nathan  the 
prophet  clearly  shows  that  this  was  the  case.' 

Furthermore,  Deuteronomy  does  not  prohibit  other 
sanctuaries.  This  statement  may  appear  startling,  but 
it  is,  nevertheless,  true.  It  ordains  that  there  shall  be 
only  one  place  for  his  name  to  dwell,  and  that  is  all.  And 
this  phrase  is  a  technical  term  for  Yahweh's  presence  at 
the  central  sanctuary.  It  does  not  prohibit  other  places 
and  altars  for  "sacrifices,"  so  long  as  those  sacrifices  are 
made  to  Yahweh.  Deuteronomy  may  be  searched  from 
one  end  to  the  other  without  finding  a  single  prohibition, 

I  I  Chron.  17:2-6;  II  Sam,  7:5-7. 


84  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

denunciation,  or  even  reproof  of  altars  of  this  sort.  On 
the  contrary,  Deuteronomy,  in  the  code  itself, '  orders  the 
people  to  go  to  Ebal  and  ratify  the  covenant  made  in  Horeb 
and  ]Moab.  And  in  Joshua  we  read  that  Joshua  carried 
out  this  command  by  building  an  altar  to  Yahweh  and 
sacrificing  thereon,  and  writing  the  law  of  Deuteronomy 
upon  twelve  stones  placed  around  the  altar.  Thus  we 
see  that  D  deliberately  ordained  at  least  one  altar  of  sacri- 
fice apart  from  Jerusalem  or  the  ark. 

The  twelfth  is  the  great  chapter  in  Deuteronomy  for- 
bidding idolatry,  and  it  is  on  this  chapter  chiefly  that  critics 
base  their  contention  about  the  "single  central  sanctuary 
of  the  D  code."  But  in  this  very  chapter,  in  vss.  15  and 
21  we  find  permission  given  for  the  killing  of  animals  out- 
side the  sanctuary.  At  first  glance  it  might  appear  that 
this  killing  was  just  ordinary  slaughtering.  But  the 
Hebrew  word  here  is  zabach,  which  never  has  meant,  and 
never  can  mean,  anything  else  but  a  sacrifice.  The 
Revisers  have  thus  made  themselves  liable  to  the  charge 
either  of  wilful  misrepresentation  or  of  almost  unpardon- 
able ignorance  in  translating  this  word  with  "kill"  merely, 
because  in  both  these  verses  we  are  dealing  with  sacrifices 
and  sacrificing.  Thus  we  see  that,  even  in  the  very  pas- 
sage most  cited  against  other  altars  than  that  of  Jerusalem, 
Deuteronomy  permits  sacrificing  to  Yahweh  at  any  and 
every  place  in  which  his  people  see  fit  to  do  it. 

VI.     D  and  the  Priests  the  Levites 

It  is  further  objected  by  critics  that  a  date  as  early  as 
we  have  postulated  for  D  is  impossible  because  in  the  early 
history  of  Israel  anybody  was  permitted  to  offer  sacrifice, 
while  the  D  code  confines  the  sacrificing  to  the  priests 

1  Deut.  11:29;  27:4-13. 


FINDING  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT  85 

the  Levites.  Of  course  it  is  true  that  D  prescribes  a 
Levitical  priesthood,  that  it  includes  as  priests  the  sons 
of  Levi,'  and  that  these  sons  of  Levi  are  to  be  identified 
with  the  whole  tribe  of  Levi.^  But  here  again  critics 
have  been  reading  into  the  Bible  something  which  it  does 
not  contain.  Deuteronomy  nowhere  confines  the  right  to 
sacrifice  to  members  oj  the  tribe  of  Levi,  All  that  Deuter- 
onomy does  insist  upon  is  that  the  Levites  shall  serve  at 
that  sanctuary  where  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  is,  or,  to 
use  the  technical  term,  "the  place  where  Yahweh's  name 
is  dwelling."^ 

VII.     Finding  of  the  D  Document 

We  have  seen  that  there  is  every  reason  for  believing, 
and  none  for  disbelieving,  that  the  D  document  originated 
at  a  very  early  date,  and  that  the  document  was  known 
right  down  through  Hebrew  history,  at  least  down  to  the 
time  of  Hezekiah.  What  then  was  meant  by  the  state- 
ment that  the  book  was  "found"  in  the  temple  in  the 
eighteenth  year  of  Josiah?  The  word  for  "find,"  maza, 
points  to  a  discovery,  not  by  any  means  to  an  invention. 
The  book  seemingly  had  been  unknown  to  Josiah  up  to 
the  time  of  its  discovery.  Shaphan,  Hilkiah,  and  Hulda, 
seem  all  of  them  to  have  been  equally  surprised  when  they 
saw  it.  And  indeed  we  cannot  expect  that  it  should  have 
been  otherwise.  The  historical  books  show  no  trace  of 
it  since  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  nearly  a  century  before. 
Now  it  will  be  remembered  that,  when  we  were  discussing 
the  P  code,  we  noticed  that  in  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat, 
873  B.  c,  the  Levites  went  through  the  cities  of  Judah  on 

I  Deut.  21:5;  31:9.  ^^Deut.  18:1. 

3  For  the  distinction  between  the  D  term,  "the  priests  the  Levites,"  and 
the  P  term,  "the  priests  and  Levites,"  see  below,  p.  195. 


86  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

missionary  work  to  teach  the  Law  of  Yahweh,  i.  e.,  the 
P  code.  May  we  not  see  in  this  an  organized  effort  on 
the  part  of  the  Aaronic  or  P  priesthood  to  undermine  the 
D  code  in  favor  of  that  more  particularly  its  own  ?  If  this 
be  so,  it  is  not  hard  to  imagine  a  gradual  decrease  in  influ- 
ence on  the  part  of  the  D  code,  until,  some  time  in  the 
reign  of  the  idolatrous  Manasseh,  ca.  685  b.  c,  it  sank 
entirely  into  disuse  and  finally  disappeared  from  the  com- 
mon knowledge  of  the  people. 

At  the  same  time  we  should  expect  that  there  would  be  a 
copy  of  this  important  law  in  the  oracle  place  of  the  tem- 
ple. Here  only  the  high-priest  could  enter,  and  that  only 
once  in  each  year,  with  the  blood  that  was  to  be  sprinkled 
on  the  ark.  This  oracle  place  was  completely  dark.  The 
high-priest  could  see  nothing  inside  it,  nor  could  he  touch 
anything  there.  We  have  noticed  above  that  in  D  itself 
there  is  an  order  that  a  copy  of  it  be  laid  up  before  Yahweh, 
at  the  side  of  the  Ark.  This  copy  might  very  well,  then, 
be  in  the  oracle  place  in  Josiah's  time,  and  have  been  there 
since  Solomon  built  the  temple.  For  we  have  no  good 
reason  to  doubt  that  Solomon  complied  with  the  law  and 
placed  the  copy  there  as  it  required.  It  may  have  been 
quietly  resting  there  those  340  years,  while  the  people, 
and  even  the  high-priest  himself,  may  have  been  in  these 
later  times  utterly  ignorant  of  its  existence. 

Now,  there  were  masons,  carpenters,  and  builders 
making  extensive  repairs  of  the  breaches  of  the  temple. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  assume  that  these  repairs  extended 
to  the  oracle  place.  We  are  told,  indeed,  that  the  repairs 
were  to  breaches  in  "the  house,"  i.  e.,  in  the  temple  build- 
ing proper,  consisting  of  the  holy  place  and  the  oracle 
place.     Since  we  have  no  reason  to  assume  that  the  repairs 


FINDING  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT  87 

extended  over  the  two-thirds  of  the  house  devoted  to  the 
holy  place  but  not  to  the  other  third,  the  oracle  place,  we 
have  indeed  every  reason  to  assume  that  the  repairs  did 
extend  to  the  latter.  It  is  only  natural  that  while  this  work 
was  going  on  the  book  should  have  been  found  and  turned 
over  to  the  high-priest. 

Naville  has  lately  suggested  that  the  book  may  have 
been  found  by  the  workmen  under  the  walls  of  the  temple.' 
He  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  several  temples  of 
Egypt  deposition  documents  have  been  found  which  had 
been  placed  there  when  the  temples  were  built.  When 
such  temples  were  repaired,  these  documents  were  taken 
out,  augmented  with  additions  regarding  the  repairs,  and 
then  laid  back  in  their  places  in  the  foundations.  He 
suggests  that  Deuteronomy  may  have  been  found  in  this 
manner. 

Professor  Grimme,  using  Naville's  suggestion  as  a 
basis,  believes  that  there  is  a  statement  in  the  code  itself 
to  that  effect.  His  view  seems  very  plausible.^  It  is  not 
necessary  that  the  book  should  have  been  laid  in  the  wall 
or  in  the  cornerstone,  however.  His  argument  applies 
equally  well  if  it  had  been  hidden  away  in  the  oracle  place. 
The  passage  which  Grimme  cites  reads,  ''That  which  was 
hidden  away  unto  Yahweh  our  God  and  which  has  been 
revealed  to  us  and  to  our  children  forever,  that  we  may 
do  all  the  works  of  this  law."^ 

The  D  code  proper  ends  with  the  twenty-eighth  chapter. 
The  next  chapter  is  doubtless  a  later  addition.  Whether 
it  was  made  by  Joshua  or  by  some  other  person  is  hard  to 

^PSBA,  Vol.  XXIX,  pp.  232-42. 

'OLZ,  1907,  pp.  610-15;  1908,  pp.  188-93. 

3  Deut.  29:29. 


88  THE  DATE  OF  THE  D  DOCUMENT 

decide.  But  in  thought  and  language  it  corresponds  very 
closely  with  the  code  itself.  It  was  probably  there  when 
the  book  was  discovered  in  Josiah's  time.  This  verse 
which  Grimme  notes  may  then  have  been  added  at  the 
time  the  book  was  discovered.' 

VIII.     Conclusion 

All  these  facts  in  relation  to  the  finding  of  the  document 
only  go  to  corroborate  what  we  have  concluded  from  the  rest 
of  the  evidence,  both  internal  and  external.  The  early  date 
which  we  have  determined,  namely,  at  least  as  early  as  the 
time  of  Joshua,  seems  not  only  plausible,  but  extremely 
probable. 

'  The  contents  of  the  verse  seem  to  point  to  this  meaning  rather  than  to 
the  rather  pointless  one  of  the  R.  V.  translation,  "The  secret  things  belong  unto 
the  Lord  our  God:  but  the  things  which  are  revealed  belong  to  us  and  to  our 
children  forever,  that  we  may  do  all  the  works  of  this  law."  This  passage, 
thus  translated,  shows  no  logical  connection  either  with  the  preceding  or  with 
the  following  chapters. 


CHAPTER  VII 
The  Date  of  the  E  Document 

I.     The  E  Code  Precedes  D 

Almost  all  modern  critics  admit  that  the  E  document 
precedes  the  D  document  in  date.  Indeed,  it  is  a  part  of 
the  Critical  Hypothesis  that  this  should  be  so,  for  the  laws 
and  institutions  of  the  E  code  seem,  at  first  glance,  to 
belong  to  quite  a  primitive  state  of  society,  and  to  be  both 
fewer  in  number  and  less  minute  than  those  of  D.  The 
argument  is  well  taken.  E  is  older  than  D.  Now  we 
found  above  that  D  is  to  be  dated  from  the  legislation  in 
Moab.  The  Bible  asserts  that  the  E  code  was  given 
forty  years  before  that,  at  Horeb.  May  this  statement 
be  accepted  ? 

It  may  be  objected  that  this  time  is  too  short  to  allow 
for  a  change  in  culture  so  great  as  that  shown  by  a  com- 
parison of  the  two  codes.  But  two  answers  may  be 
advanced  to  meet  this  objection : 

a)  First,  it  is  not  certain  that  we  have  the  whole  E  code 
in  our  Hexateuch  today.'  Further,  the  J  code,  if  there 
be  one,  claims  to  belong  to  the  same  time  and  occasion, 
but  it  is  only  one-sixth  the  length  of  the  E  code  as  it  now 
stands.  We  cannot  therefore  certainly  say  that  the  E 
code  as  it  was  originally  was  either  much  shorter  or  much 
simpler  than  the  D  code. 

b)  Second,  even  under  the  Critical  Hypothesis  there  is 
assumed  only  a  little  more  than  a  century  between  these 
two  codes.     If  such  a  change  could  have  taken  place  in 

I  In  Exod.,  chaps.  21-23. 


90  THE  DATE  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

SO  short  a  time  in  the  later  monarchy,  with  its  settled  state 
of  society,  how  much  easier  would  have  been  such  a  change 
and  how  much  quicker,  in  the  years  between  the  legisla- 
tions of  Horeb  and  Moab,  during  which  time  we  have 
the  graphic  story  of  not  less  than  four  rebellions,  numerous 
trials,  and  the  unparalleled  training  of  a  stubborn  and 
stiff-necked  people. 

When  we  have  admitted,  then,  that  our  date  for  E 
depends  upon  our  date  for  D,  it  might  seem  as  if  there 
were  nothing  further  to  say  on  the  date  of  this  document 
and  code.  But  there  are  some  few  points  that  need  to 
be  touched  on. 

II.     "  Law  of  Elohim  " 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  Bible  has  technical 
terms  for  the  D  and  P  codes.  We  have  observed  that  the 
Law  0}  Yahwch  meant  P,  and  that  the  Law  0)  Moses 
meant  D.  Similarly,  we  might  expect  that  the  E  code  also 
would  have  a  technical  term  to  denote  it.     Is  this  the  case  ? 

Modern  critics  claim  that  the  E  code  had  its  origin  in 
the  Northern  Kingdom.  And  whether  or  not  it  arose 
there,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  that  was  where  it  was 
more  particularly  in  force.  Now  Hosea  was  a  prophet 
to  the  Northern  Kingdom,  and  when  he  reproved  the 
people  of  Samaria  he  did  it  in  the  following  language: 
"My  people  are  destroyed  for  lack  of  knowledge;  because 
thou  hast  rejected  knowledge,  I  will  also  reject  thee,  that 
thou  shalt  be  no  priest  to  me;  seeing  that  thou  hast  for- 
gotten the  Law  of  thy  God  [Elohim],  I  also  will  forget  thy 
children.'"  Here  we  have  a  reference  to  a  Law  of  God 
or  Elohim.  This  law  must  have  been  one  known  to  the 
people,  else  Hosea  could  not  very  well  have  cited  it  in 

'  Hos.  4:6. 


THE  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT  91 

rebuking  them.  Now  the  E  document  contains  a  code 
which  might  very  well  have  been  in  operation  in  Samaria, 
with  its  low  ideas  of  Yahweh.  At  this  time  it  seems  that 
even  the  simple  laws  of  the  code  which  had  been  in  effect 
were  set  aside  for  idolatrous  practices.  The  prophet 
therefore  rebuked  the  people  for  having  no  knowledge, 
i.  e.,  of  Yahweh  as  presented  in  this  simple  code,  because 
they  had  ''forgotten  the  Laiv  of  Elohim.'' 

In  Joshua  we  read,'  "And  Joshua  wrote  these  words 
in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Elohim;  and  he  took  a  great 
stone,  and  set  it  up  there  under  the  oak  that  was  by  the 
sanctuary  of  Yahweh.  And  Joshua  said  unto  all  the  peo- 
ple. Behold  this  stone  shall  be  a  witness  against  us ;  for 
it  has  heard  all  the  words  of  Yahweh,  which  He  spake 
unto  us:  it  shall  be  therefore  a  witness  against  you,  lest 
ye  deny  your  God."  The  words  referred  to  were  the 
parting  address  of  Joshua  to  Israel  by  the  sanctuary  of 
Shiloh,^  where  Joshua  and  the  people  made  a  covenant 
with  Yahweh,  that  they  should  be  his  people  and  worship 
him  only.  When  the  people  had  agreed  to  this,  Joshua 
informed  them  that  he  would  write  their  words  and  answers 
in  the  Law  of  Elohim,  to  be  a  witness  against  them  forever. 
There  was,  then,  a  Law  of  Elohim  in  existence  at  this 
time,  and  it  must  have  been  in  codified  form,  capable  of 
receiving  an  addition,  else  Joshua  could  not  have  added 
in  writing  the  covenant  agreement. 

III.     The  Book  of  the  Covenant 

We  have  now  seen  that  there  was  probably  a  Law  of 
Elohim,  known  in  the  time  of  Joshua  at  the  time  when  he 
made  the  covenant  at  Shiloh,  and  that  this  law  was  in 

I  Josh.  24:26,  27.  ^  See  p.  132. 


92  THE  DATE  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

written  form  and  so  capable  of  receiving  written  additions. 
We  will  now  see  that  at  least  a  portion  of  the  code  was  in 
written  form  before  the  covenant  at  Shiloh. 

In  Exod.  24:7  we  have  a  reference  to  the  Book  of  the 
Covenant:  "And  he  took  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and 
read  in  the  audience  of  the  people :  and  they  said,  All  that 
Yahweh  has  spoken  will  we  do,  and  be  obedient."  It  is 
to  be  noted  that  this  document  is  a  book,  and  therefore 
in  written  form.  Let  us  now  inquire  what  this  Book  of 
the  Covenant  contained. 

Modern  critics  agree  that  the  Book  of  the  Covenant 
contained  Exod.  21:1—23:19,  i.e.,  the  judgments  at 
Horeb.  This  they  call  the  Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
while  Exod.  34:13-26  they  call  the  Lesser  Book  of  the 
Covenant.  This  is  a  reading  into  the  Bible  which  cannot 
be  admitted.  The  laws  in  Exod.,  chap.  34,  are  not,  and 
never  have  been,  a  part  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant.  We 
have  only  one  Book  of  the  Covenant.  In  order  to  deter- 
mine just  what  was  its  original  extent,  let  us  review  briefly 
the  history  of  the  thcophanies  at  Horeb. 

In  Exod.  19:3  we  are  told  that  Moses  went  up  unto 
God,  and  that  Yahweh  called  to  him  out  of  the  mountain. 
We  find  afterward  that  this  mountain  is  Mount  Horeb. 
God  at  this  time  commanded  Moses  to  speak  to  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  and  remind  them  how  he  had  brought 
them  out  of  Egypt,  and  promised  that  if  they  would  keep 
his  commandments  the  kingdom  of  Israel  should  become 
a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation.  The  covenant 
mentioned'  is,  of  course,  the  covenant  which  Yahweh  is 
about  to  establish  with  the  people.  Moses  then  came 
down  from  the  mountain,  called  for  the  elders  of  the  people 

I  Exod.  19:5. 


THE  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT  93 

and  set  before  them  the  words  of  Yahweh,  i.  e.,  that  he 
intended  to  make  a  covenant  with  them.  The  people 
answered  that  all  that  Yahweh  had  said  they  would  do. 
Moses  then  returned  to  the  mountain  and  reported  the 
words  of  the  people  to  Yahweh.' 

Yahweh  then  informed  Moses  that  he  was  going  to 
appear  in  a  thick  cloud,  and  himself  speak  to  the  people. 
He  therefore  ordered  Moses  down  from  the  mountain 
to  sanctify  the  people,  that  they  might  be  ready  by  the 
third  day,  on  which  Yahweh  was  going  to  speak  from  the 
mount.  On  the  third  day  Yahweh  appeared  on  the  moun- 
tain, and  called  Moses  up  to  him.  There  he  gave  instruc- 
tions that  bounds  should  be  set  around  the  mountain  so 
that  the  people  should  not  come  near  it.  Moses  objected, 
because  he  had  already  taken  these  precautions,  but  Yah- 
weh ordered  him  down  just  the  same,  telling  him  that  he 
and  Aaron  should  come  up  afterward.  =" 

When  Moses  had  come  down  to  the  people,  God  spake 
to  them  the  Words,  i.  e.,  the  ten  commandments  contained 
in  Exod.  20:2-17.  The  people  heard  the  voice,  saw  the 
lightnings,  trembled,  and  asked  Moses  that  he,  and  not 
God,  might  speak  with  them,  that  they  might  not  die.^ 
The  Ten  Words  or  commandents,  then,  are  represented 
as  being,  not  the  words  of  Moses,  or  the  words  of  God  as 
delivered  through  Moses,  but  the  words  of  God  himself, 
which  he  spoke  with  his  own  voice  to  the  Israelites  from 
Horeb. 

At  this  request  of  the  people,  Moses  went  up  once  more 
into  the  mountain  and  drew  near  the  thick  darkness  where 
God  was,  while  the  people  all  drew  away  from  the  mount.'* 
Yahweh  then   spoke   to   Moses  the  words  contained   in 

I  Exod.  19:8.        2  Exod.  19:24.        3  Exod.  20:19.        4  Exod.  20:21. 


94  THE  DATE  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

Exod.  20:  22^-26.  Then  he  commanded  the  "judgments" 
contained  in  Exod.  21:2 — 23:19.  Yahweh  then  contin- 
ued to  speak  to  Moses,  informing  him  how  he  would  send 
an  angel  before  them  to  bring  them  into  the  land  of  Can- 
aan.' When  these  words  had  been  spoken,  Yahweh  told 
Moses  that  he,  Aaron,  Nadab,  Abihu,  and  seventy  of  the 
elders  of  Israel  should  come  up  to  the  mountain,  but  that 
only  Moses  should  come  near  unto  Yahweh.^  "Moses 
then  came  down  and  told  the  people  all  the  words  of  Yah- 
weh, and  all  the  judgments:  and  all  the  people  answered 
with  one  voice,  and  said,  All  the  words  which  Yahweh 
has  spoken  will  we  do.  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words 
of  Yahweh,  and  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,  and  builded 
an  altar  under  the  mount,  and  twelve  stones,  according 
to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."^ 

"All  the  words  of  Yahweh"  must  include  all  that 
Yahweh  had  spoken  to  the  people  (Exod.  20:2-17),  but 
not  the  judgments  in  Exod.  21:2 — 23:19.  Having  writ- 
ten down  these  things,  Moses  sent  his  officers  who  pre- 
pared for  a  sacrifice. 

At  this  sacrifice  they  took  half  of  the  blood  and 
sprinkled  it  upon  the  altar.  Then  Moses  read  the  Book 
oj  the  Covenant  in  the  ears  of  the  people.  Again  they 
answered,  "All  that  Yahweh  has  spoken,  we  will  do,  and 
be  obedient."^  Thereupon  Moses  took  the  other  half 
of  the  blood  and  sprinkled  it  on  the  people  and  said, 
"Behold  the  blood  of  the  covenant  which  Yahweh  has 
made  with  you  concerning  all  these  words. "^  The  cove- 
nant at  Horeb  was  thus  marked  by  a  sacrifice,  at  which 
the  people  formally  accepted  the  Covenant  Book. 

'  Exod.  23:20-33.  3  Exod.  24:3,  4.  5  Exod.  24:8. 

2  Exod.  24:1,  2.  4  Exod.  24:7. 


THE  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT  95 

Moses,  Aaron,  and  the  seventy  elders  then  presented 
themselves  unto  the  God  of  Israel  on  the  mount,  and 
there  they  beheld  God,  and  did  eat  and  drink.'  The 
covenant  sacrifice  was  thus  continued  in  the  very  presence 
of  God. 

The  Book  of  the  Covenant  was  so  called  because  it  con- 
tained the  covenant  between  God  and  the  people,  and  this 
covenant  is  contained  in  the  "ten  words,"  i.  e.,  the  Deca- 
logue. The  Book  oj  the  Covenant  is  then  an  exact  parallel 
to  the  Tables  of  Covenant,  which,  as  we  know,  contained 
only  the  "ten  words."  The  difference  in  name  refers, 
then,  to  the  different  kinds  of  material,  on  which  the  cove- 
nant-words were  recorded.  Being  called  a  "book," 
the  covenant-words  must  have  been  written  down  by 
Moses,  exactly  as  the  Bible  itself  asserts.^ 

"Judgments"  is  a  technical  term  for  civil  law.  The 
analogy  of  usage  at  this  time,  as  evidenced  by  the  Code 
of  Hammurabi  in  Babylonia  and  the  Law^s  of  Haremhab 
in  Egypt — both  of  which  were  civil  law-codes — requires 
us  to  assume  that  the  "judgments"  in  Exod.,  chap.  21-23, 
must  have  been  written  and  thus  made  accessible  not  only 
to  the  people,  but  for  the  judges  that  had  been  appointed 
a  few  days  before. 

When  the  covenant  was  thus  consummated,  God  ordered 
Moses  to  come  up  into  the  mountain  to  receive  tables  of 
stone,  and  the  law,  and  the  commandment.^  We  have 
here  new  terms,  and  we  have  no  right  to  assume  that  these 
new  revelations  have  anything  to  do,  either  with  the  words 
of  God  to  Moses,  or  with  the  "judgments."  They  are 
technical  terms  for  various  laws  which  Yahweh  now  was 
about  to  give. 

I  Exod.  24:11.  2  Exod.  24:4.  3  Exod.  24:12. 


96  THE  DATE  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

Moses  and  Joshua,  his  minister,  then  went  up,  as  com- 
manded, and  God  wrote  on  the  tables.  Moses  stayed  this 
time  upon  the  mountain  for  forty  days  and  forty  nights. 
Suddenly  Moses  was  ordered  by  God,  to  go  dow^n,  for  the 
people  had  made  a  calf  and  were  worshiping  it.'  Moses 
and  Joshua  therefore  descended,  and  when  Moses  found 
out  what  the  people  had  done,  in  anger  he  broke  the  two 
tables.  Moses  rushed  to  the  people,  and,  finding  them  in 
rebellion,  he  placed  himself  in  the  gate  of  the  camp,  and 
said,  ''Whoso  is  on  Yahweh's  side,  unto  me!'" 

The  sons  of  Levi  immediately  left  the  rebellious  hosts, 
and  joined  him.  Moses  ordered  them  to  take  swords  and 
restore  order  in  the  camp.^  After  a  heavy  slaughter, 
peace  was  restored.  The  members  of  the  faithful  tribe 
of  Levi  were  ordered  to  consecrate  themselves,  and  when 
they  had  been  blessed  Moses  returned  to  the  mountain 
to  intercede  for  the  people. 

Yahweh  was  angry,  but  he  finally  acceded  to  Moses' 
request,  and  followed  him  to  his  tent — which  is  now  called 
the  Tent  of  Meeting — outside  the  camp.  Yahweh  ordered 
Moses  to  hew  two  more  tables,  like  unto  the  first  ones, 
with  the  promise  that  he  would  write  on  them  the  words 
which  the  first  ones  had  contained.'*  The  next  morning 
Moses  presented  himself  yet  again  on  the  mountain,  and 
again  stayed  forty  days,  fasting.  He  pleaded  that  Yahweh 
would  pardon  the  iniquity  and  the  sin,  and  take  the  people 
for  his  inheritance.^  Yahweh  agreed  to  this,  and  said, 
"Behold,  I  am  making  a  covenant:  before  all  thy  people 
I  will  do  marvels,  such  as  have  not  been  created  in  all  the 
earth,  nor  in  any  nation:  and  all  the  people  among  which 

'  Exod.  32:8.  3  Flxod.  32:27.  5  Exod.  34 :q. 

^Exod.  32:26.  4  Exod.  34:1. 


THE  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT  97 

thou  art  shall  see  the  work  of  Yahweh,  for  it  is  a  terrible 
thing  that  I  do  with  thee.  Observe  that  which  I  command 
thee  this  day:  behold,  I  drive  out  before  thee  the  Amorite, 
and  the  Canaanite,  and  the  Hittite,  and  the  Perizzite,  and 
the  Hivite,  and  the  Jebusite."'  There  follows  a  section 
of  commandments,^  and  then  the  text  continues,  "And 
Yahweh  said  unto  Moses,  Write  thou  these  words:  for 
after  the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  made  a  covenant  with 
thee  and  with  Israel.  And  he  was  there  with  Yahweh 
forty  days  and  forty  nights;  he  did  neither  eat  bread  nor 
drink  water.  And  he  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of 
the  covenant,  the  Ten  Words. "^ 

We  thus  see  that  there  was  a  second  covenant  made  at 
Horeb,  but  that  we  have  no  record  of  the  second  covenant 
possessing  anything  like  a  Covenant  Book.  Yahweh  had 
promised  Moses  "tables  of  stone,"  and  "the  law,"  and 
"  the  commandments."^  From  Exod.,  chap.  34,  we  found 
that  Moses  received  the  two  "tables,"  inscribed  with  the 
Ten  Words,  and  also  some  "commandments,"  contained 
in  Exod.  34:12-26.  As  for  "the  law,"  the  word  used 
means  also  "instruction,"  and  we  have  an  instruction 

I  Exod.  34: 10,  II.  ^  Exod.  34: 12-26. 

3  Exod.  34:27,  28.  From  the  account  given  in  Deuteronomy  we  know 
that  the  words  spoken  at  Mount  Horeb  by  Yahweh,  i.  e.,  the  Ten  Words 
(Exod.  20:2-17)  were  identical  with  the  words  written  on  the  two  tables  (Exod. 
34:38).  In  Deut.  5:22  we  read,  "These  words  Yahweh  spake  unto  all  your 
assembly,  in  the  mount,  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  of  the  cloud,  and  of  the 
thick  darkness,  with  a  great  voice:  and  He  added  no  more."  From  Deut.  9:9 
we  know  that  these  tables  were  called  the  Tables  of  the  Covenant:  "When  I 
was  gone  up  into  the  mount  to  receive  the  tables  of  stone,  even  the  Tables  of 
the  Covenant,  then  I  abode  in  the  mount  forty  days  and  forty  nights;  I  did 
neither  eat  bread  nor  drink  water."  The  last  clause  identifies  these  tables 
with  Moses'  last  visit  to  the  mountain  (Exod.  34:28).  For  further  references 
on  the  Tables  of  the  Covenant,  cf.  Deut.  9:10,  n,  15,  17;  ^°-^-5- 

4  Exod.  24:12. 


98  THE  DATE  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

given  in  Exod.  34:10,  11,  quoted  above.  The  law 
and  the  commandment  are,  then,  the  records  contained 
in  Exod.  34:10-26,  together  with  the  Ten  Words,  which 
are  not  repeated  here  because  they  evidently  were  identical 
with  those  spoken  by  Yahweh  himself,  and  recorded  in 
Exod.,  chap.  20. 

According  to  Exod.  34:27  Yahweh  commanded  INIoses 
to  "write  down  all  these  words,"  which  may  refer  only  to 
the  "law  and  the  commandments."  We  have  no  reason 
to  assume  that  Moses  did  not  comply  with  this  command. 
The  laws  of  Exod.,  chap,  34,  were  then  written  down. 

Thus,  after  this  long  divergence  into  the  records  of  the 
Horeb  covenants,  we  see  that  there  existed  a  book,  called 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant,  containing  Exod.  20:2-17, 
which  was  made  at  Horeb,  and  also  "judgments"  (Exod. 
21-23),  and  a  law  and  a  commandment,  written  at  the 
same  place,  containing  Exod.  34:10-26.  The  E  code 
must  then  have  contained  both  the  Covenant  Book  and 
the  laws  in  Exod.,  chaps.  21-23,  ^^'^^  34'  ^^^  ^^^t  of  which 
is  so  generally  considered  as  a  J  code. 

But,  however  this  may  be,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  Covenant  Book  (Exod.  20:2-17)  is  a  portion  of  the  E 
document.  This  document  generally  addresses  God 
under  the  name  of  Elohim,  and  would  quite  naturally  be, 
therefore,  a  part  of  the  Law  of  Elohim.  We  have  seen 
before  that  the  Law  of  Yahiveh  is  the  P  code,  given  at 
Sinai,  and  likewise  that  the  Law  of  Moses  is  the  D  code, 
given  in  Moab.  We  shall  therefore  probably  be  not  far 
wrong  in  assuming  that  the  Law  of  Elohim  is  the  E  code, 
given   at   Horeb.  ^ 

'  The  confusion  of  the  names  Sinai  and  Horeb  in  Exod.,  chaps.  19,  24,  34 
of  J  took  place  when  J  and  P  were  combined.     See  p.  138. 


CONCLUSION  99 

IV.     Date  of  the  E  Document 

We  believe,  therefore,  that  the  E  code  extends  back 
in  written  form  to  the  covenant  at  Horeb.  The  question 
then  remains  as  to  whether  any  of  the  document  outside 
of  the  code  existed  at  that  early  time.  In  Exod.  17:14 
we  read,  "And  Yahweh  said  unto  Moses,  Write  this  for 
a  memorial  in  a  book,  and  rehearse  it  in  the  ears  of  Joshua : 
that  I  will  utterly  blot  out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek 
from  under  heaven." 

The  passage  refers  to  the  war  with  Amalek  in  Rephidim, 
and  the  account  of  that  war  is  given  in  Exod.  17:8-16.  It 
would  seem,  then,  taking  the  internal  evidence  of  the  docu- 
ment itself,  that  at  least  this  much  of  the  E  document  was 
written  down  in  a  book  as  early  as  the  events  in  Horeb. 

V.     Conclusion 

We  have  seen  that  there  existed  in  the  time  of  Hosea, 
at  least  in  the  Northern  Kingdom,  a  code  called  the  Law 
of  Elohim.  Again,  we  found  this  same  technical  term 
used  as  early  as  the  time  of  Joshua,  and  used  in  a  way  that 
denoted  a  code.  As  the  Hexateuch  has  only  three  codes, 
and  two  of  them  have  already  been  identified,  we  suggested 
that  this  Law  of  Elohim  was  the  technical  term  for  the 
only  other  one,  the  E  code.  We  found,  further,  that  a 
part  of  the  E  code  was  known  as  the  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
and  that  this  included  the  first  legislation  at  Horeb. 
This  was  called  a  "book,"  and  had  therefore  been  written 
down.  We  found,  too,  that  the  later  legislation  at  Horeb 
was  also  written  down.  It  seemed  obvious,  then,  that 
the  part  of  the  E  code  which  we  now  have  existed  in 
written  form  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  the  Horeb  covenant. 
We  found,  too,  that  at  least  one  part  of  the  E  document 


lOO        THE  DATE  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

outside  the  code  seems  to  have  existed  in  written  form  from 
the  same  time  as  the  code.  We  shall  probably  not  err  very 
gravely  in  concluding  that  the  whole  E  document,  with 
the  code,  existed  from  a  very  early  age,  not  later  than  the 
time  of  Joshua.  This  last  we  concluded  because  the 
document  was  capable  of  receiving  an  addition  in  his  time 
at  the  covenant  at  Shiloh. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Unity  and  Contents  of  the  E  Document 

I.     Unity  of  the  E  Document 

The  Documentary  Theory  presupposes,  as  in  the  case  of 
P,  that  the  Hexateuch  contains  a  complete  E  document,  if 
only  we  are  able  correctly  to  disengage  it  from  the  other 
material.  It  is  held,  however,  by  most  critics  that  no 
certain  traces  of  E  are  to  be  found  earlier  than  Genesis, 
chap.  20. '  It  is  evident,  though,  that  we  have  no  complete 
history  in  the  E  document,  even  from  the  time  of  Abraham 
to  that  of  Joshua,  which  is  the  period  that  E  is  generally 
supposed  to  cover.  If  we  did  not  have  the  history  of  the 
J  document  and  the  Toledoth  Book  of  P,  the  E  document 
would  be  mere  fragments,  often  utterly  unintelligible. 
This  applies  especially  to  the  Exodus  story.  It  is  not  to 
be  denied  that  there  was  once  a  complete  E  document, 
although  of  it  we  have  only  fragments  preserved  in  our 
Hexateuch. 

II.     Unity  of  the  E  Code 

But  it  is  not  only  the  document  that  is  fragmentary. 
The  code  is  undoubtedly  fragmentary  too.  In  Exod. 
15: 25-26  we  read,  "There  he  (Yahweh)  made  for  them  a 
statute  and  an  ordinance,  and  there  he  proved  them;  and 
he  said.  If  thou  wilt  diligently  hearken  unto  the  voice  of 
Yahweh  thy  God,  and  wilt  do  that  which  is  right  in  his 
eyes,  and  wilt  give  ear  to  his  commandments,  and  keep 
all  his  statutes,  I  wiQ  put  none  of  the  diseases  upon  thee, 
which  I  have  put  upon  the  Egyptians:  for  I  am  Yahweh 

I  Some  critics  think  that  a  few  verses  in  chap.  15  and  chap.  16  belong  to  it. 

lOI 


I02     THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

that  healeth  thee."  The  passage  belongs  to  E.  It  refers 
to  the  incident  of  the  sweetening  of  the  bitter  waters  at 
Marah.  Now  a  "statute"  was  given  to  the  people  at 
Marah,  and  a  "statute"  means  originally,  in  Hebrew, 
"something  engraved,"  either  on  stone  or  on  metal.  A 
"statute"  cannot  be  a  mere  oral  law;  it  must  be  a  written 
law.  The  term  "statute"  became  technicalized  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  meant  a  "canonical"  or  "church"  law.' 
In  contrast  with  the  "statutes"  are  the  "judgments,"  a 
term  which  denotes  a  code  of  "civil  and  criminal  laws."' 
Now  the  E  code  contains  several  "judgments,"  but  not  a 
single  "statute,"  although,  as  we  have  seen,  a  statute  was 
given  at  Marah. 

A  day  or  two  later,  when  the  people  were  encamped 
at  Rephidim,  at  the  foot  of  ]\Iount  Horeb,  Moses  received 
a  visit  from  his  father-in-law,  Jethro.  This  happened 
before  the  legislation  at  Horeb  took  place.  Of  this  visit 
we  read  that  Moses  was  sitting  and  judging  the  people 

1  The  following  laws  in  the  Hexateuch  are  called  "statutes":  Day  of 
Atonement,  Lev.  16:29,  3i>  34;  23:31;  sacrifices  to  he-goats,  Lev.  17:7; 
sheaf  of  firstfruits,  Lev.  23:14;  Pentecost,  Lev.  23:21;  Festival  of  Booths  or 
Tabernacles,  Lev.  23:41;  shewbreads,  Lev.  24:9;  use  of  the  silver  trumpets, 
Num.  10:8;  the  tithe.  Num.  18:23:  water  of  separation,  Num.  19:2-21;  vows. 
Num.  30:16;  purification  of  spoil,  Num.  31:21;  the  Passover,  Exod.  12:14 
ff.;  13:10;  the  lamp,  Exod.  27:20,  21;  Lev.  24:3;  the  breeches  of  the  priest. 
Exod.  28:42,43;  the  priesthood,  Exod.  29:9;  the  heave-offering,  Exod.  29:28; 
Num.  18:8-19;  the  laver,  Exod.  30:21;  fat  of  blood,  Lev.  3:17;  sacrifices 
at  consecration  of  priests,  Lev.  6:22;  7:36;  the  wave-offering.  Lev.  7:34; 
10:13-15;  and  the  temperance  of  the  priest.  Lev.  10:9. 

2  The  only  place  where  the  term  "judgments"  is  used  as  the  title  of  par- 
ticular laws  is  in  E.xod.  21:1,  where  it  is  in  the  superscription  to  the  laws  con- 
tained in  Exod.  21:2 — 23:19.  The  term  "judgments"  corresponds  exactly  to 
the  term  danitu  used  in  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  (col.  40,  1.  31),  as  the  technical 
term  of  that  code.  In  Babylonian  the  word  ddnu,  meaning  "to  judge,"  corre- 
sponds with  the  Hebrew  iaphal.  From  the  Code  of  Hammurabi  we  know 
that  such  codes  did  exist  in  written  form.  The  Hebrew  word  tuiSpat,  "judg- 
ment," must  be  similarly  understood. 


UNITY  OF  THE  E  CODE  103 

who  were  coming  in  large  numbers  to  plead  their  cases 
before  him.     Jethro  asked  Moses  why  he  was  doing  all 
this  judging  himself.     "And  Moses  said  unto  his  father- 
in-law,  Because  the  people  come  unto  me,  to  inquire  of 
God :  when  they  have  a  matter,  they  come  unto  me ;  and 
I  judge  between  a  man  and  his  neighbor,  and  I  make  them 
know  the   statutes  of  Elohim,   and  his  laws.'"     Then 
Jethro  counseled  Moses  to  become  only  the  supreme  jus- 
tice, taking  the  cases  before  God,  and  to  appoint  other 
judges  to  be  a  court  of  first  instance:   "Be  thou  for  the 
people  as  Elohim,  and  bring  thou  the  causes  unto  Elohim: 
and  thou  shalt  teach  them  the  statutes  and  the  laws,  and 
shalt  shew  them  the  way  wherein  they  must  walk,  and  the 
work  that  they  must  do."'     How  could  he  teach  them 
"statutes,"  if  he  had  none  to  teach?    How  could  the 
judges  of  these  lower  courts  decide  if  they  had  no  basis 
for  making  decisions  ?   It  is  necessary  to  hold  well  in  mind 
the  fact  that  a  "statute"  means  something  "engraved." 
The  answer  to  these  questions  is  plain  when  we  consider 
what  was  stated  above,  that  a  "statute"  had  been  given, 
two  days  before,  at  Marah.     And  still  our  E  code  has  not 
one  trace  of  a  "statute,"  for  its  "judgments"  on  the  festi- 
vals, in  Exod.  23:14-17,  belong  to  civil  and  not  at  all  to 
canonical  regulations. 

How  can  such  a  disappearance  be  accounted  for  ?    Let 

us  see. 

The  General  Priesthood 

After  these  "statutes"  had  been  delivered,  on  the  first 
day  that  God  stood  on  the  mountain,  he  said  to  Moses, 
"Now  therefore,  if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and 
keep  my  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure 

I  Exod.  18:15,  16.  '  Exod.  18:19,  20. 


I04    THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

unto  me  above  all  peoples :  for  all  the  earth  is  mine :  and 
ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  oj  priests,  and  an  holy 
nation.'"  Whether  the  statutes  already  given  were  to 
this  effect,  or  whether  there  were  other  statutes  given  three 
days  later,  we  can  never  know;  but  it  seems  certain,  at 
any  rate,  that  a  statute  was  given  to  this  effect.^  It  was 
certainly  the  intention  to  make  the  whole  nation  a  priest- 
hood, and  every  man  a  priest.  Yahweh  based  this  remark- 
able statement  on  the  condition  that  the  people  should  keep 
his  covenant  which  he  was  about  to  make  with  them.  The 
covenant  was  established,  the  people  accepting  all  the  con- 
ditions of  Yahweh:  ''All  that  Yahweh  hath  spoken,  we 
will  do."^  Then  Moses  told  the  people  all  the  words  and 
the  judgments  of  Yahweh,  after  they  themselves  had  heard 
him  proclaim  the  Ten  Words,  and  the  people  again 
answered,  and  said  with  one  voice,  "All  the  words  which 
Yahweh  hath  spoken,  we  will  do."*  The  people  thus 
complied  with  the  conditions  of  Yahweh.  The  Covenant 
was  established ;  the  words  and  the  judgments  were  given 
to  them  as  their  law.  The  whole  people  thus  became  a 
priesthood,  appointed  by  Yahweh  himself,  and  every 
Israelite,  or  at  least  every  firstborn  Israelite,  of  the  Assem- 
bly, not  only  had  a  right,  but  was  de  facto  constituted  by 
Yahweh  himself,  to  perform  priestly  functions.  Con- 
sequently we  read,  "And  Moses  rose  up  early  in  the  morn- 
ing, and  builded  an  altar  under  the  mount,  and  twelve 
stones  [so  the  LXX,  but  the  Hebrew  has  "pillars"],  accord- 
ing to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel.  And  he  sent  young  men 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  offered  burnt-offerings,  and 

I  Exod.  19:5,  6. 

» If  this  be  denied,  it  is  certain  at  least  that  God  proclaimed  it  to  Moses. 

3  Exod.  19:8.  4  Exod.  24:3. 


UNITY  OF  THE  E  CODE  105 

sacrificed  peace-offerings  of  oxen  to  Yahweh."'  These 
young  men  were  not  Levites,  nor  were  they  heads  of  their 
fathers'  houses,  but  were  evidently  picked,  one  out  of  each 
tribe.  The  twelve  stones  were  in  this  case,  as  so  often 
else,  sacrificial  places,  corresponding  to  the  later  high- 
places.  A  general  priesthood,  consisting  of  all  Israel, 
was  thus  inaugurated. 

The  Levitical  Priesthood 

When  this  covenant  was  established,  Moses,  Aaron, 
Nadab,  and  Abihu,  and  seventy  elders  went  up  into  the 
mount,  and  Moses  staid  there  forty  days.  Aaron  and 
the  elders  returned.  In  the  meantime  the  people  fell 
away  into  idolatry,  requesting  that  Aaron  would  make 
them  a  golden  calf  to  worship.  Aaron  complied  with  the 
request,  and  this  gave  Yahweh  occasion  to  tell  Moses  to 
go  down  to  the  people.  When  Moses  came  down  he 
found  the  people  in  revolt.^  He  then  stood  in  the  gate 
of  the  camp  and  called  for  volunteers.  The  sons  of  Levi 
presented  themselves  unto  him.  Moses  ordered  them 
to  go  out  into  the  camp  and  put  down  the  rebellion.  They 
did  so,  slaying  some  3,000  men.^  Moses  then  turned 
to  the  Levites  (for  it  is  to  them  he  is  speaking  in  this  pas- 
sage), "and  Moses  said,  Consecrate  yourselves  today 
to  Yahweh,  yea,  every  man  against  his  son  and  against 
his  brother;  that  he  may  bestow  upon  you  a  blessing 
this  day."^ 

This  passage  is  not  translated  perfectly,  either  in  the 
A.  V.  or  in  the  R.  V.  The  LXX  reads,  "Fill  your  hands 
this  day  to  Yahweh,  every  one  against  his  son  and  against 
his  brother,  that  a  blessing  may  be  bestowed  upon  you." 

I  Exod.,  24:4,  5.  3  Or  perhaps  better,  "three  clans." 

*Exod.  32:25.  4  Exod.  32:29. 


io6  THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

This  is  not  only  the  Greek,  but  it  is  a  perfect  translation 
of  the  Hebrew  text  as  we  have  it  in  the  Massoretic  version 
today.  Now  "fill  the  hands"  is  in  Hebrew  a  technical 
term  for  "ordain  to  the  priesthood."  Up  to  this  time 
all  the  people  had  been  priests,  but  now,  after  the  rebellion 
with  its  worship  of  the  golden  calf,  the  people  had  for- 
feited their  priesthood  in  the  eyes  of  Moses.  The  tribe 
of  Levi  alone  had  turned  to  the  side  of  Yahweh  and  fought 
for  him.  As  a  reward,  Moses  at  that  time  constituted 
the  whole  tribe  of  Levi  as  the  priesthood  of  Yahweh,  to 
take  the  place  of  that  of  all  the  people,  now  forfeited.  It 
is  worth  noticing  that  Moses  did  this  without  any  express 
command  from  Yahweh.  We  have  therefore,  now,  two 
ideas  of  the  priesthood,  one  based  on  the  covenant  at 
Horeb,  consisting  of  all  the  people,  the  other  consisting 
of  the  Levites  exclusively,  constituted  by  IMoses  at  this 
time.  The  first  priesthood  is  that  of  the  E  code;  the 
second,  that  of  the  D  code! 

The  Levitical  priests  thus  resulting  received,  forty 
years  later,  numerous  "statutes"  regulating  their  ritual, 
which  are  embodied  in  our  Deuteronomy.  When  the 
old  E  code  came  to  be  compiled  with  the  other  codes,  in 
later  centuries,  its  "statutes,"  providing  as  they  must  have 
done  for  a  general  priesthood,  were  so  radically  different 
from  the  "statutes"  of  the  other  codes  that  they  were 
omitted  from  the  compilation.  This  seems  a  probable 
explanation  of  how  the  "statutes"  came  to  be  missing 
from  the  E  code  as  it  is  today  in  our  Hexateuch. 

At  any  rate,  as  we  have  seen,  there  were  "statutes" 
in  the  original  code,  and  these  "statutes"  have  since  dis- 
appeared. The  E  code  then,  as  it  stands  today,  is  not  a 
complete  code;   it  is  fragmentary. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  E  CODE  107 

III.     The  History  of  the  E  Code 

The  point  made  above,  that  the  E  code  provided  for  a 
priesthood  which  consisted  of  all  Israel,  has  a  very  great 
and  important  bearing  on  two  things:  first,  on  the  con- 
tention of  many  critics  by  which  they  seek  to  show  that  all 
codes,  and  the  E  code  among  them,  were  late ;  and  second, 
on  the  restoration  of  the  history  of  the  E  code. 

a)  It  is  maintained  by  critics  that  neither  the  E  code 
nor  any  other  code  was  in  operation  before  800  b.  c,  or 
perhaps  even  750  b.  c,  or  700  b.  c,  because  the  history 
of  Israel  does  not  show  us  any  traces  of  the  operation  of 
any  code  before  this  time.  In  proof  of  this  it  is  asserted 
by  the  critics  that  up  to  the  time  of  950  b.  c,  at  least, 
sacrifices  were  made  in  different  places  in  Israel  by  men 
who  were  neither  priests  nor  Levites,  and  that,  moreover, 
not  a  single  protest  was  made  against  it.  The  authors 
of  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings  record  such  instances  as 
commonplace  matters  of  fact.  Such  actions,  the  critics 
claim,  are  contrary  to  the  codes.  Therefore,  when  such 
things  were  allowed,  the  codes  could  not  have  existed. 
But,  as  we  have  seen  above,  such  a  practice  is  not  in  con- 
tradiction to  all  the  codes;  it  is  in  exact  accordance  with 
the  E  code.  By  the  simple  hypothesis  that  each  of  the 
non-Levites  who  sacrificed  was  a  follower  of  the  E  code, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  ordained  him  a  sacrificing  priest, 
we  solve  the  difficulty,  and  remove  the  force  of  the  argu- 
ment. The  E  code  provides  that  every  Israelite  is  a 
priest,^  and  every  place  where  Yahweh  has  caused  his 
name  to  he  remembered  is  a  legitimate  place  oj  worship.  ^ 

b)  But  let  us  examine  these  various  instances  of  non- 

1  Exod.  19:6. 

2  Exod.  20:  24 


io8    THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

Levitical  sacrifices,  and  so  gain  the  outlines  of  the  history 
of  the  E  code. 

1.  In  Judg.  6:19-26  we  are  told  that  Gideon,  a  man 
of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  offered  a  sacrifice  under  the  oak 
in  Ophrah,  in  the  presence  of  the  ''angel  of  Yahweh," 
who  not  only  permitted  it  but  received  it  favorably.  Of 
course  Gideon  was  not  a  Levite.  In  the  tribe  of  Manasseh, 
then,  it  would  seem  that  the  E  code  was  observed  ca. 
1300  B.  c. 

2.  In  Judg.  II :  34-39,  Jephtha  offered  a  sacrifice,  even 
of  his  daughter.  Now  Jephtha  was  a  "  Gileadite,"  prob- 
ably of  the  tribe  of  Eastern  Manasseh,  certainly  not  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi.  Again  we  find  that  in  the  east-Jordanic 
territory  non-Levites  made  sacrifices  with  the  full  approval 
of  their  people.  The  E  code  must  have  been  in  force 
there  ca.  1210  b.  c. 

3.  In  Judg.  13:19  we  read  of  Manoah,  the  father  of 
Samson,  of  the  tribe  of  Dan.  He  too  offered  a  sacrifice 
to  Yahweh,  although  not  a  Levite.  In  the  tribe  of  Dan, 
too,  the  E  code  seems  to  have  been  observed  ca.  1150  b.  c. 

4.  In  I  Sam.  6: 14,  the  people  of  Beth-Shemesh  offered 
up  kine  for  a  burnt-oft'ering  to  Yahweh.  They  belonged 
to  the  tribe  of  Judah.  They  did  this,  moreover,  although 
there  were  Levites  present,  handling  the  ark.  At  least 
this  portion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  seems  to  have  observed 
the  E  code,  ca.  1075  B.  c. 

5.  Of  Saul  it  is  recorded,  in  I  Sam.  i4:34f.,  that  he 
built  an  altar  to  Yahweh,  around  which  both  he  and  all 
the  people  slew  sheep  and  oxen  in  a  great  propitiation 
sacrifice. '     Now  Saul  was  a  Benjaminite.     In  Benjamin, 

I  This  sacrifice  was  really  a  compromise  of  the  E  and  P  codes.  E  per- 
mitted Saul  and  all  the  people  to  sacrifice,  but  P  restricted  them  from  eating 
the  flesh  with  the  blood.     This  shows  again  Saul's  anxiety  for  the  P  code. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  E  CODE  109 

too,  the  E  code  seems  to  have  been  recognized,  ca.  1025 
B.  c. 

6.  In  I  Sam.  20:6  we  read  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the 
family  of  David  to  offer  a  yearly  sacrifice  at  Bethlehem. 
David  and  all  his  family  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
This  was  about  the  same  time  as  Saul's  great  sacrifice 
noted  above,  ca.  1025  b.  c. 

7.  This  was  no  novelty  for  David.  In  II  Sam.  6:13, 
18,  we  find  David  sacrificing  oxen  and  fatlings  as  burnt- 
offerings  and  peace-sacrifices  when  the  ark  was  brought 
to  Jerusalem.  And  again,  in  II  Sam.  24:25  we  find 
David  building  an  altar  in  Jerusalem,  where  he  offered 
burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings.  In  this  case,  though, 
it  must  be  admitted  that  possibly  there  were  Levites  pres- 
ent, who  offered  the  sacrifices  at  the  command  of  the  king. 
This  was  ca.  975  b.  c. 

8.  In  I  Kings  i :  9  we  find  a  pretender  to  the  throne,  a  son 
of  David,  offering  oxen  and  fatlings  by  the  stone  of  Zohe- 
leth.  He  too  was,  of  course,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  In 
this  case,  however,  it  may  have  been  the  Levites  who 
sacrificed  at  the  pretender's  command.  This  was  in 
971  B.  c. 

9.  About  the  same  year  Solomon  offered  sacrifices  at 
Gibeon,  as  is  recorded  in  I  Kings  3:4.  And  again,  he 
offered  sacrifices  at  the  consecration  of  the  temple,  as  we 
know  from  I  Kings  8:63.  In  both  these  cases,  though, 
the  possibility  of  Levitical  sacrifices  must  be  admitted. 
This  was  in  960  b.  c. 

These  instances  of  non-Levitical  sacrifice  cover  the 
entire  period  from  Judges  down  to  the  kingdom  of  Solo- 
mon. They  come  from  north,  south,  east,  and  west. 
Nowhere  are  the  practices  condemned.     On  the  contrary 


no  THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

they  seem  in  many  cases  to  have  the  divine  approval. 
Now  these  practices  are  authorized  in  the  E  code.  It 
would  seem,  then,  that  during  this  period  the  E  code  was 
the  one  in  use,  at  least  among  the  majority  of  the  people. 

But  we  are  able  to  carry  the  history  of  the  E  code,  not 
only  up  to  the  monarchy,  but  also  on  from  the  division  of 
the  kingdom  after  the  death  of  Solomon.  Jeroboam  was 
the  first  king  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.  One  of  the 
charges  brought  against  him  by  the  late  Deuteronomic 
editor  of  Kings  is  that  "he  made  priests  from  among  all 
the  people,  which  were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi.'"  This 
is,  as  we  have  seen,  only  in  strict  accord  with  the  provisions 
of  the  Horeb  covenant,  as  recorded  in  the  E  code. 

At  the  same  time  that  this  was  going  on  in  the  Northern 
Kingdom,  we  well  know  the  history  of  the  Southern  King- 
dom. Under  Rehoboam,  their  first  king,  they  fell  into 
idolatry,  from  which  they  were  restored  in  the  time  of  Asa 
and  Jehoshaphat.  These  kings  gave  their  preference  to 
the  Aaronic  priesthood  and  therefore  the  P  code. 

It  would  seem  then  that  after  the  separation  of  the  king- 
doms the  E  code  found  its  home  in  the  Northern  Kingdom, 
while  it  was  neglected  in  favor  of  the  P  code  in  the  Southern 
Kingdom. 

IV.     The  E  Code  and  the  Code  of  Hammurabi 

Another  thing  worth  noticing  about  the  E  code  is  its 
remarkable  similarity  to  the  Code  of  Hammurabi.  Of 
all  the  Hebrew  codes  the  E  code  is  the  only  one  which 
can  be  directly  connected  with  the  Hammurabi  law-book. 
The  following  instances  will  make  quite  plain  the  con- 
nection between  the  two: 

I  I  Kings]i2:3i. 


THE  E  CODE  AND  THE  CODE  OF  HAMMURABI   ill 


E  Code 


Code  of  Hammurabi 


Patricide 

Exod.  21:15:  And  he  that  smiteth  195.     If  a  son  strike  his  father, 

his  father  or  his  mother,  shall  surely      they|^shall  cut  off  his  fingers, 
be  put  to  death. 

Manstealing 

Exod.  21: 16:  And  he  thatstealeth  14.    If  a  man  steal  a  man's  son, 

a  man,  and  selleth  him,  or  if  he  be      who  is  a  minor,  he  shall  be  put  to 


found  in  his  hand,  he  shall  surely 
be  put  to  death. 


death. 

16.  If  a  man  harbor  in  his  house 
a  male  or  female  slave  who  has  fled 
from  the  palace  or  from  a  freeman, 
and  do  not  bring  him  forth  at  the 
call  of  the  commandant,  the  owner 
of  that  house  shall  be  put  to  death. 

19.  If  he  detain  that  slave  in  his 
house  and  later  that  slave  be  found 
in  his  possession,  that  man  shall 
be  put[to  death. 

Quurrels 


Exod.  21:18,  19:  And  if  men 
contend,  and  one  smiteth  the  other 
with  a  stone,  or  with  his  fist,  and 
he  die  not,  but  keep  his  bed;  if  he 
rise  again,  and  walk  abroad  upon 
his  staff,  then  shall  he  that  smote 
him  be  quit:  only  he  shall  pay  for 
the  loss  of  his  time,  and  shall  cause 
him  to  be  thoroughly  healed. 

Miscarriage 


206.  If  a  man'strike  another  man 
in  a  quarrel  and  wound  him,  he 
shall  swear,  "I  struck  him  without 
intent,"  and  he  shall  be  responsible 
for  the  physician. 


Exod.  21:22,  23:  And  if  men 
(strive  together  and)  hurt  a  woman 
with  child,  so  that  her  fruit  depart, 
and  yet  no  mischief  follow:  he  shall 
be  surely  fined,  according  as  the 
woman's  husband  shall  lay  upon 
him;  and  he  shall  pay  as  the  judges 
determine.  But  if  any  mischief 
follow,  then  thou  shalt  give  Hfe  for 
Hfe. 


209.  If  a  man  strike  a  man's 
daughter,  and  bring  about  a  mis- 
carriage, he  shall  pay  ten  shekels 
of  silver  for  her  miscarriage. 

210.  If  that  woman  die,  they  shall 
put  his  daughter  to  death. 

211.  If,  through  a  stroke,  he 
bring  about  a  miscarriage  to  the 
daughter  of  a  freeman,  he  shall  pay 
five  shekels  of  silver. 


112    THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

E  Code  Code  of  Hammurabi 

212.  If  the  woman  die,  he  shall 
pay  one-half  mana  of  silver. 

213.  If  he  strike  the  female  slave 
of  a  man,  and  bring  about  a  mis- 
carriage, he  shall  pay  two  shekels 
of   silver. 

214.  If  that  female  slave  die,  he 
shall  pay  one-third  mana  of  silver. 

Lex  talionis 

Exod.   21:24,   25:    Eye   for  eye,  196.  If  a   man   destroy   the   eye 

tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot      of  another  man,  they  shall  destroy 
for  foot,  burning  for  burning,  wound      his  eye. 

for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe.  197.  If  one  break  a  man's  bone, 

they  shall  break  his  bone. 

198.  If  one  destroy  the  eye  of  a 
freeman,  or  break  the  bone  of  a 
freeman,  he  shall  pay  one  mana  of 
silver. 

199.  If  one  destroy  the  eye  of  a 
man's  slave,  or  break  a  bone  of  a 
man's  slave,  he  shall  pay  one-half 
his  price. 

200.  If  a  man  knock  out  the  tooth 
of  a  man  of  his  own  rank,  they  shall 
knock  out  his  tooth. 

201.  If  one  knock  out  a  tooth  of  a 
freeman,  he  shall  pay  one-third 
mana  of  silver. 

Goring 

Exod.  21:28:    And  if  an  ox  shall  250.  If    an    ox,     when    passing 

gore  a  man  or  a  woman,  that  they  through    the    street,    gore    a    man, 

die,  the  ox  shall  be  surely  stoned,  and  brings  about  his  death,  that  case 

and  his  flesh  shall  not  be  eaten;  but  has  no  penalty, 

the  owner  of  the  ox  shall  be  quit.  251.  If  a  man's  ox  were  wont  to 

Exod.  21:29:    But  if  the  ox  were  gore,    and    they    have    testified    to 

wont  to  gore  in  time  past,  and  it  him  his  habit  of  goring,  and  he  have 

has    been    testified    to    his    owner,  not   protected   his   horns,    or   have 

and  he  hath  not  kept  him  in,  but  he  not  tied  him  up, 


THE  E  CODE  AND  THE  CODE  OF  HAMMURABI   113 


E  Code 
hath  killed   a  man   or  a   woman, 
the  ox  shall  be  stoned;  and  his  owner 
also  shall  be  put  to  death. 

Exod.  21:30:  If  there  be  laid 
on  him  a  ransom,  then  he  shall  give 
for  the  redemption  of  his  life  what- 
soever is  laid  upon  him. 

Exod.  21:31:  Whether  he  have 
gored  a  son,  or  have  gored  a  daugh- 
ter, according  to  this  judgment  shall 
it  be  done  unto  him. 

Exod.  21:32:  If  the  ox  gore  a 
man-servant  or  a  maid-servant,  he 
shall  give  unto  their  master  thirty 
shekels  of  silver,'  and  the  ox  shall 
be  stoned. 

Theft  of 

Exod.  22:1:  If  a  man  shall  steal 
an  ox,  or  a  sheep,  and  kill  it,  or  sell 
it,  he  shall  pay  five  oxen  for  an  ox, 
and  four  sheep  for  a  sheep. 


Code  of  Hammurabi 


and  that  ox  gore  the  son  of  a  man, 
and  bring  about  his  death,  he  shall 
pay  one-half  mana  of  silver. 

252.  If  it  be  the  servant  of  a  man, 
he  shall  pay  one-third  mana  of  silver. 


animals 

8.  If  a  man  steal  ox  or  sheep,  ass 
or  pig,  or  boat— if  it  be  from  God 
or  palace,  he  shall  restore  thirty- 
fold— if  it  be  from  a  freeman,  he 
shall  render  tenfold.  If  the  thief 
have  nothing  wherewith  to  pay,  he 
shall  be  put  to  death. 


Burglary 
Exod.  22:2:  If  the  thief  be  found  22.  If  a  man  practice  brigandage, 

breaking  in,  and  be  smitten  that  he      and  be  captured,  that  man  shall  be 
die,  there  shall  be  no  blood-guiltiness      put  to  death, 
for  him. 

Unlawful  pasturage 


Exod.  22:5:  If  a  man  shall  cause 
a  field  or  vineyard  to  be  eaten,  and 
shall  let  his  beast  loose,  and  it  feed 
in  another  man's  field,  of  the  best 
of  his  own  field,  and  of  the  best  of 


58.  If,  after  the  sheep  have  gone 
up  from  the  meadow,  and  have 
crowded  their  way  out  of  the  gate 
into  the  public  common,  the  shep- 
herd turn  the  sheep  into  the  field. 


I  Equals  i  mana,  but  the  Phoenician  mana  equals  f  of  a  Babylonian,  and 
the  value  of  the  penalty  is  therefore  identical  in  the  two  laws. 


114    THE  UNITY  AXD  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 


E  Code 
his   own   vineyard   shall   he    make 
reparation. 


Code  of  Hammurabi 

and  pasture  the  sheep  on  the  field, 
the  shepherd  shall  oversee  the  field 
on  which  he  pastures,  and  at  the 
time  of  har\'est  he  shall  measure 
out  sixty  Giir  of  grain  per  ten 
Gan  to  the  owner  of  the  field. 


Deposit 


Exod.  22:7:  If  a  man  shall  deliver 
unto  his  neighbor  money  or  stuff 
to  keep,  and  it  be  stolen  out  of  the 
man's  house,  if  the  thief  be  found, 
he  shall  pay  double. 

Exod.  22:8:  If  the  thief  be  not 
found,  then  the  master  of  the  house 
shall  come  near  unto  God,  (to  see) 
whether  he  have  not  put  his  hand 
unto  his  neighbor's  goods. 


125.  If  a  man  give  anything  of 
his  on  deposit,  and  at  the  place  of 
deposit,  either  by  burglary  or  pillage 
he  suffer  loss  in  common  with  the 
owner  of  the  house,  the  owner  of 
the  house  who  has  been  negligent 
and  has  lost  what  was  given  to  him 
on  deposit  shall  make  good  (the 
loss),  and  shall  restore  (it)  to  the 
owner  of  the  goods.  The  owner  of 
the  house  shall  institute  a  search 
for  what  has  been  lost,  and  take  it 
from  the  thief. 


Storage 


Exod.  22:9:  For  every  matter 
of  trespass,  whether  it  be  for  ox, 
for  ass,  for  sheep,  for  raiment,  (or) 
for  any  manner  of  lost  thing,  whereof 
one  saith.  This  is  it,  the  cause  of 
both  parties  shall  come  before  God; 
he  whom  God  shall  condemn  shall 
pay  double  unto  his  neighbor. 


120.  If  a  man  store  his  grain  in 
bins  in  the  house  of  another,  and  an 
accident  happen  to  the  granary 
or  the  owner  of  the  house  open  a 
bin  and  take  grain,  or  if  he  raise 
a  dispute  about  the  amount  of  grain 
which  was  stored  in  his  house,  the 
owner  of  the  grain  shall  declare  his 
grain  before  God,  and  the  owner  of 
the  house  shall  double  the  amount 
of  the  grain  which  he  took  and 
restore  it  to  the  owner  of  the  grain. 

Herding 
Exod.   22:10:    If  a  man  deliver  263.  If  he  lose  an  ox  or  sheep 

unto  his  neighbor  an  ass,  or  an  ox,  which  is  given  to  him,  he  shall 
or  a  sheep,  or  any  beast,  to  keep,  restore  to  their  owner  ox  for  ox, 
and  it  die,  or  be  hurt,  or  be  driven      sheep  for  sheep. 


THE  E  CODE  AND  THE  CODE  OF  HAMMURABI   115 


E  Code 
away,  no  man  seeing  it,  11.  the 
oath  of  Yahweh  shall  be  between 
them  both,  whether  he  hath  not  put 
his  hand  unto  his  neighbor's  goods; 
and  the  owner  thereof  shall  accept 
it,  and  he  shall  not  make  restitution. 
12.  But  if  it  be  stolen  from  him,  he 
shall  make  restitution  unto  the 
owner  thereof.  13.  If  it  be  torn  in 
pieces,  let  him  bring  it  for  witness; 
he  shall  not  make  good  what  was 
torn. 

Exod.  22:14:  And  if  a  man  bor- 
row aught  of  his  neighbor,  and  it 
be  hurt,  or  die,  the  owner  thereof 
not  being  with  it,  he  shall  surely 
make  restitution.  15.  If  the  owner 
thereof  be  with  it,  he  shall  not  make 
it  good:  if  it  be  an  hired  thing,  it 
cometh  into  its  hire. 

Sorcery 
Exod.    22:18:    Thou   shalt   not 
suffer  a  sorceress  to  live. 


Code  of  Hammurabi 

266.  If  a  visitation  of  God  happen 
to  a  fold,  or  a  lion  kill,  the  shepherd 
shall  declare  himself  innocent  before 
God,  and  the  owner  of  the  fold  shall 
suffer  the  damage  (cf.  244). 

245.  If  a  man  hire  an  ox  and 
cause  its  death  through  neglect 
or  abuse,  he  shall  restore  an  ox  of 
equal  value  to  the  owner  of  the  ox. 


2.  If  a  man  charge  a  man  with 
sorcery,  and  cannot  prove  it,  he  who 
is  charged  with  sorcery  shall  go  to 
the  river;  into  the  river  he  shall 
throw  himself.  And  if  the  river 
overcome  him,  the  accuser  shall 
take  unto  himself  his  house.  If  the 
river  show  the  man  to  be  innocent, 
and  he  come  forth  unharmed,  he 
who  charged  him  with  sorcery  shall 
be  put  to  death.  He  who  threw 
himself  into  the  river  shall  take  to 
himself  the  house  of  his  accuser. 


Perjury 
Exod.  23:  i:  Thou  shalt  not  take         3.  If  a  man,  in  a  case,  bear  false 
up  a  false  report:    put  not  thine      witness,    or   do    not   establish    the 
hand  with  the  wicked  to  be  an  un-      testimony  that  he  has  given,  if  that 


Ii6    THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 


E  Code 

righteous  witness.  2.  Thou  shalt 
not  follow  a  multitude  to  do  evil; 
neither  shalt  thou  bear  witness  in 
a  cause  to  turn  aside  after  a  multi- 
tude to  wrest  judgment;  3.  neither 
shalt  thou  favor  a  poor  man  in  his 
cause. 

Bribery 


Code  of  Hammurabi 
case  be  a  case  involving  life,  that 
man  shall  be  put  to  death. 


Exod.  23 : 6:  Thou  shalt  not  wrest 
the  judgment  of  thy  poor  in  his 
cause.  7.  Keep  thee  far  from  a 
false  matter;  and  the  innocent  and 
righteous  slay  thou  not;  for  I  will 
not  justify  the  wicked.  8.  And  thou 
shalt  take  no  gift:  for  a  gift  blindeth 
them  that  have  sight,  and  per\'erteth 
the  cause  of  the  righteous. 


4.  If  a  man  bear  witness  for  grain 
or  money,  he  shall  himself  bear 
the  penalty  imposed  in  that  case. 
5.  If  a  judge  pronounce  a  judgment, 
render  a  decision,  deliver  a  verdict 
duly  signed  and  sealed  and  after- 
ward alter  his  judgment,  they  shall 
call  that  judge  to  account  for  the 
alteration  of  the  judgment  which 
he  had  pronounced,  and  he  shall 
pay  twelve-fold  the  penalty  which 
was  in  said  judgment;  and,  in  the 
assembly,  they  shall  expel  him  from 
his  seat  of  judgment,  and  he  shall 
return,  and  with  the  judges  in  a 
case  he  shall  not  take  his  seat. 

The  similarity  between  the  two  codes,  which  the 
examples  given  above  serve  to  illustrate,  has  been  noticed 
by  many  scholars,  and  some  of  them  have  consequently 
drawn  the  conclusion  that  the  E  code  was  based  on  the 
Code  of  Hammurabi,  and  that  therefore  the  time  when 
the  former  code  was  written  must  have  been  a  time  when 
Babylonian  influence  exerted  itself  in  Palestine.  This 
argument,  it  may  be  remarked,  goes  against  the  date 
usually  assigned  by  critics  to  this  code.  For  if  the  E  code 
were  written  in  the  eighth  century,  Babylonian  law  codes 
could  have  influenced  it  little  if  at  all.  At  that  time  Baby- 
lonia was  a  very  weak  state,  and  the  history  of  Israel  at 


CONCLUSION  117 

that  time  shows  how  impossible  any  considerable  Baby- 
lonian influence  could  have  been. 

But  we  have  ventured  to  claim  that  the  E  code  was 
delivered  at  Horeb,  in  the  time  of  Moses,  sometime  in 
the  fifteenth  century.  At  this  time  there  was  a  close 
connection  between  Babylonia,  then  in  great  power,  and 
Egypt  which  the  Israelites  had  so  lately  left  and  from  which 
Moses  had  received  his  education.  Intermarriages  had 
taken  place  between  the  two  royal  houses.'  Caravans 
were  constantly  passing  from  the  one  land  to  the  other.  ^ 
A  Babylonian  influence  upon  the  E  code  would  at  this 
time  have  been  quite  possible. 

But,  in  spite  of  the  many  similarities  between  the  two 
codes,  it  is  true  that  there  are  differences.  These  are 
accounted  for  by  two  things:  (i)  Over  seven  hundred 
years  had  elapsed  since  the  time  when  the  Code  of  Ham- 
murabi as  we  have  it  today  had  been  published  in  Baby- 
lonia, during  which  time,  as  we  know,  it  had  been  modified 
even  in  Babylonia  itself;  (2)  in  promulgating  a  Babylonian 
code  among  the  Hebrews  it  was  of  course  necessary  so  to 
modify  it  as  to  fit  the  surrounding  conditions  and  the 
Hebrew  temperament. 

V.  Conclusion 

We  have  seen  in  this  chapter  that  the  E  document  is 
not  a  document,  but  a  collection  of  fragments  of  what  was 
once  a  document;  that  the  code  too  is  not  a  complete 
code,  but  also  fragmentary,  and  especially  wanting  in  the 
"statutes"  which  once  belonged  to  it  but  which  have  been 
lost;  that  the  E  code  provided  for  a  non-Levitical  priest- 

'  Cf.  Knudtzon,  Die  El-Amarna-Tafeln,  Nos.  1-14. 
2  Ibid.,  No.  8,  11.  11-41. 


Ii8    THE  UNITY  AND  CONTENTS  OF  THE  E  DOCUMENT 

hood ;  that  in  the  period  of  the  judges  and  the  early  mon- 
archy the  presence  of  this  non-Levitical  priesthood  shows 
the  general  use  of  the  E  code  all  over  Israel;  that  it  is 
probable  that  at  the  division  of  the  kingdom  the  E  code 
with  its  non-Levitical  priesthood  became  peculiarly  the 
law  of  the  Northern  Kingdom;  and  that  the  E  code  shows 
a  remarkable  similarity  to  the  Code  of  Hammurabi.  In 
all  of  these  things  we  can  find  no  contradiction,  but  on 
the  contrary  confirmation,  of  the  theory  reached  in  the 
last  chapter,  that  the  E  document  is  to  be  assigned  to  a 
date  much  earlier  than  that  generally  given  by  the  critics, 
and  that  quite  probably  it  belongs  to  the  time  when  it 
purports  to  have  been  delivered,  namely  the  stop  at  Horeb 
when  Moses  and  the  people  received  it  at  Yahweh's  hands. 


CHAPTER  IX 

The  Relation  Between  the  E  and  D  Documents 

Everyone  admits  that  D  is  later  than  and  dependent 
upon  E.  Our  analysis  has  shown  that  it  is  later,  nor  can 
it  be  denied  that  it  is  dependent  upon  it.  But  the  inter- 
relations of  the  two  are  worthy  of  more  than  a  merely 
passing  reference. 

The  Bible  itself  gives  the  reason  for  the  similarity 
between  the  two,  when  it  says  that  D  was  promulgated  in 
the  land  of  Moab  forty  years  after  E  had  been  given  in 
the  Horeb  mountain,  and  to  the  same  people.  Moses  and 
Joshua  are  represented  as  acting  together  in  both  cases. 

We  saw  in  the  last  chapter  that  after  the  rebellion  at 
Horeb  had  been  put  down  there  were  two  priesthoods, 
one  authorized  by  the  code  and  consisting  of  all  the  sons 
of  Israel,  the  other  authorized  by  Moses  and  consisting 
only  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  which  he  wished  to  reward.  But 
did  the  new  order  take  effect  immediately  and  over  the 
whole  army? 

The  Rebellion  at  Kadesh 

Shortly  after  the  events  at  Horeb  the  assembly  started 
on  its  northward  march.  After  a  short  stay  in  Hazeroth 
the  assembly  reached  Kadesh-barnea.  Here  Yahweh 
commanded  Moses  to  send  out  twelve  spies  to  search  the 
land,  and  Moses  accordingly  appointed  one  from  each 
tribe,  among  them  Caleb  and  Joshua.' 

I  This  appointment  of  the  spies  is  generally  assigned  to  P,  although  the 
critics  themselves  are  not  agreed.  If  it  be  P,  it  belongs  to  the  older  Toledoth 
Book,  or  else  it  is  a  P  redaction  of  an  older  document. 

119 


I20        RELATION  BETWEEN  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

These  spies  went  as  far  as  the  valley  of  Escol,  and,  after 
forty  days,  returned.  Ten  of  them  gave  a  most  discourag- 
ing report,  while  Caleb  and  Joshua  tried  to  encourage 
the  people  to  go  in  and  to  take  the  land.  The  assembly, 
however,  murmured  and  was  dissatisfied.  Yahweh, 
enraged,  ordered  Moses  to  tell  the  people  to  stay  in  the 
wilderness  for  forty  years,  until  those  who  had  murmured 
were  dead. 

When  Moses  promulgated  this  commandment  of  Yah- 
weh, a  great  rebellion  broke  out.  "  They  rose  up  early 
in  the  morning  and  got  them  up  to  the  top  of  the  mountain, 
saying,  Lo,  we  be  here,  and  will  go  up  unto  the  place 
which  Yahweh  has  promised,  for  we  have  sinned."' 
Moses  tried  to  persuade  them  to  desist  from  this  under- 
taking, but  in  vain.  "But  they  presumed  to  go  up  to  the 
top  of  the  mountain;  nevertheless  the  ark  of  the  covenant 
of  Yahweh,  and  Moses,  departed  not  out  of  the  camp."^ 

Thus  we  see  that  there  were  now  two  camps  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  one  which  went  up  into  the  highlands,  the 
other  which  remained  at  Kadesh  with  Moses  and  the  ark. 
These  two  parties  were  never  entirely  re-joined  during  the 
entire  forty  years  between  this  and  the  conquest. 

The  First  Conquest 

The  party  which  went  up  into  the  highlands  suffered 
a  crushing  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  Amalekites  and 
Canaanites.^  They  were  not,  however,  destroyed,  but 
finally  made  a  second  stand  at  Zephat,  where  they  routed 
the  Canaanites,  and  in  memory  of  their  victory  called 
the  place  Hormah.-*  This  story  is  again  given  in  Judg. 
1:17  as  a  part  of  the  story  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan, 

1  Num.  14 :  40.     The  sin  had  been  their  not  going  up  when  ordered  to  do  so. 

2  Num.  14:44.  3  Num.  14:45.  4  Num.  21:1-3;  14:45. 


THE  FIRST  CONQUEST  1 21 

It  is  significant  that  it  is  a  conquest  in  which  Joshua  takes 
no  part. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  it  is  Judah  and  a  part  of  Simeon 
which  make  this  conquest  in  the  Judges  story.  The 
punishment  received  at  the  hands  of  the  Canaanites  was 
sufficient  to  send  many  of  the  rebels  cringing  back  to  Moses 
at  Kadesh.'  Judah,  however,  did  not  come  hack.  We 
conclude  this  from  at  least  two  circumstances. 

In  the  first  place,  Moses,  when  blessing  the  people  in 
Moab,  at  the  slopes  of  Pisgah,  prayed  to  Yahweh  in  the 
following  words,  "Hear,  Yahweh,  the  voice  of  Judah,  and 
bring  him  in  unto  his  people :  with  his  hands  he  contended 
for  himself;  and  thou  shalt  be  an  help  against  his  adver- 
saries."' This  shows  that  at  the  death  of  Moses  Judah 
was  still  separated  from  his  brethren. 

In  the  second  place,  after  Joshua  had  conquered  a 
portion  of  Canaan,  written  the  laws  at  Shechem,  and 
located  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  at  Gilgal,  "then  the  chil- 
dren of  Judah  drew  nigh  unto  Joshua  in  Gilgal:  and  Caleb 
the  son  of  Jephunneh,  the  Kenizzite,  said  unto  him.  Thou 
knowest  the  thing  that  Yahweh  spake  unto  Moses  the 
man  of  God,  concerning  thee  and  concerning  me,  in 
Kadesh-barnea."^  In  the  history  as  told  by  the  E  docu- 
ment, Caleb,  son  of  Jephunneh,  does  not  appear  once 
between  Kadesh-barnea  and  this  present  occasion.  Here 
at  last,  in  Gilgal,  according  to  E,  the  prayer  of  Moses  is 
fulfilled,  and  Judah  again  takes  its  place  in  the  confederacy 
of  the  tribes.  In  the  meantimiC,  apparently,  the  tribe 
had  been  living  a  free-booter  life  in  the  mountainous  wilds 
of  Judaea. 

1  Deut.  1:44-46.  3' Josh.  14:6, 

2  Deut.  33:7. 


122        RELATION  BETWEEN  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

But  was  Judah  the  only  tribe  which  seceded  at  Kadesh 
and  did  not  return  ? 

In  Judg.  1 :  22-26  is  a  story  about  "the  house  of  Joseph" 
which  went  up  and  occupied  Bethel.  It  has  been  assumed 
that  this  house  of  Joseph  was  merely  another  name  for 
the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh.  Some  have 
included  Benjamin  in  it,  basing  this  upon  I  Sam.  9:21. 
In  the  time  of  David  it  is  true  that  the  name  was  applied 
to  these  three  tribes.  But  originally  the  house  of  Joseph 
seems  to  have  occupied  middle  Palestine,  before  the  tribes 
of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  had  come  into  the  country 
at  all.  This  is  quite  the  simplest  way  to  explain  Judg., 
chap.  I,  where  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  and  their  conquests 
are  mentioned  directly  after  those  of  this  house  of  Joseph. 

We  see  that  the  house  of  Joseph  conquered  Bethel.' 
And  from  Judg.  1 134,  35  we  learn  that,  when  the  Danites 
had  been  driven  away  by  the  Amorites,  the  house  of  Joseph 
came  and  subdued  the  conquerors  and  made  them  tribu- 
tary. These  two  are  the  only  mentions  of  any  conquests 
on  the  part  of  the  house  of  Joseph. 

The  conquests  made  by  Ephraim  and  the  half-tribe 
of  Manasseh  are  told  of,  however,  not  only  in  Judg., 
chap.  I,  but  also  in  Josh.,  chaps.  16,  17.  The  same  is 
true  of  Zebulon,  Asher,  Naphtali,  and  Dan,  which  are  told 
of  in  Josh.,  chap.  19.  We  are  told  in  Judg.  i :  27-34  that 
none  of  these  six  tribes  was  able  to  effect  a  settlement  at 
this  time  in  Canaan.  On  the  other  hand,  both  Judah  and 
this  house  of  Joseph  are  said  to  have  effected  settlements 
and  to  have  maintained  strong  positions. 

What  then  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose  than  that  this 
house  of  Joseph,  like  the  tribe  of  Judah,  was  a  Hebrew 

I  The  Judges'  account  is  the  only  account  of  this  conquest  in  the  Bible. 


THE  FIRST  CONQUEST  123 

tribe  long  established  and  thoroughly  at  home  in  Canaan 
some  time  before  Joshua  and  his  invading  confederacy 
appeared  on  the  scene  ?  And  if  this  be  true,  what  can 
be  more  likely  than  that  it  too  was  a  tribe  which  seceded 
at  Kadesh-barnea,  not  to  rejoin  the  confederacy  until  after 
the  conquest  of  Canaan  had  begun  ? 

From  the  account  in  Numbers  we  are  not  able  to  say 
just  what  tribes  seceded  at  Kadesh.  All  we  can  say  is 
that  of  those  which  did  secede  some  stragglers  came  back 
after  the  battles  with  Amalek  and  Canaan/  That  any 
whole  tribe  came  back  we  have  no  record.  If,  however, 
no  whole  tribe  did  come  back,  we  must  suppose  that  the 
remnants  of  the  old  tribes  would  reorganize  on  the  basis 
of  the  old  tribal  lines  and  resume  their  place  in  the  con- 
federacy. We  must  also  suppose  that  the  portions  which 
had  left  would  do  the  same  thing  in  the  lands  whither 
they  had  gone.  Thus  it  is  perfectly  possible  that  after 
Kadesh  there  should  have  been  the  same  number  of  tribes 
about  Moses  as  before,  while  at  the  same  time  there  were 
Hebrew  tribes,  bearing  the  same  names,  in  Palestine, 
whither  the  rebels  had  fled. 

Does  not  this  throw  some  light  upon  that  difficult 
passage,  Judg.  1:1 — 2:5?  This  portion  of  Judges  is 
conceded  by  scholars  to  be  of  a  different  source  than  the 
rest  of  the  book.  It  describes  several  conquests,  namely 
those  of  Judah,  Simeon,  Benjamin,  the  house  of  Joseph, 
Western  Manasseh,  Ephraim,  Zebulon,  Asher,  Naphtali, 
and  Dan.   With  what  period  of  time  does  this  passage  deal  ? 

It  has  been  assumed  that  the  reference  corresponds  to 
Josh.,  chaps.  7-21.      But  this  cannot  be  admitted.     The 

I  And  this  we  learn  from  Deut.  i :  45.  No  mention  of  any  return  is 
contained  in  Numbers. 


124        RELATION  BETWEEN  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

history  in  the  two  passages  is  vitally  different.  In  Judges, 
in  the  first  place,  Joshua  is  not  mentioned.  He  does  not 
appear.'  Secondly,  in  Judges  the  six  tribes,  Manasseh 
Ephraim,  Zebulon,  Asher,  Naphtali,  and  Dan,  do  not 
effect  a  settlement.  In  Joshua,  "^  on  the  other  hand,  these 
same  tribes  do  effect  a  settlement. 

It  is  far  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  two  pas- 
sages refer  to  quite  different  events,  and  to  quite  different 
periods.  What  can  be  more  likely  than  that  in  Judges  we 
deal  with  attempts  at  settlement  on  the  part  of  those  portions 
of  the  tribes  which  had  seceded  at  Kadesh  and  gone  north, 
while  in  Joshua  we  have  the  record  of  the  later  and  more 
effective  settlements  made  by  those  portions  of  the  same 
tribes  which  had  remained  at  Kadesh  under  Moses^ 
guidance  ? 

We  left  Moses  and  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  at  Kadesh- 
barnea.  Let  us  go  back  for  a  while  and  follow  the  adven- 
tures of  those  with  him.  We  are  still  in  the  first  year  of 
the  wandering,  at  least  so  far  as  E  tells  us.  We  know 
that  neither  Judah  nor  the  house  of  Joseph  is  longer  with 
him.  Both  have  gone  north  and  have  settled  in  Palestine. 
Of  the  other  six  tribes  mentioned  in  Judg.,  chap,  i,  por- 
tions at  least  remain  around  Moses,  holding  the  old  places 
in  the  confederacy  of  the  tribes.  The  three  so-called 
''east-Jordanic  tribes,"  Reuben,  Gad,  and  Manasseh, 
since  they  are  not  mentioned  in  Judg.,  chap,  i,  at  all,  seem 
to  have  remained  intact  at  the  secession  and  to  have  con- 
tinued with  Moses.  ^ 

'  The  mention  of  his  name  in  Judges  i :  i  is,  of  course,  due  to  a  redactor 
who  wished  to  connect  Judges  with  the  preceding  book.  This  is  conceded 
by  all. 

2  Josh.,  chaps.  i6,  17,  19. 

3  The  omission  seems  unexplainable  on  any  other  theory. 


THE  FIRST  CONQUEST  125 

And  it  is  these  three  last-mentioned  tribes  which  play 
the  most  important  part  after  Kadesh.  The  next  event 
told  of  in  E  is  the  rebellion  of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  which 
happened  at  Kadesh,  after  the  great  insurrection,  but 
before  the  army  had  moved  on.  Both  Dathan  and 
Abiram,  the  leaders  in  this  rebellion,  are  Reubenites. 

After  this,  except  for  a  brief  notice  of  the  death  of 
Miriam,  we  have  in  E  a  blank  of  thirty-eight  years. 
When  the  curtain  again  rises  we  find  the  people  in  the 
land  of  Moab.  Here  we  have  the  great  battles  against 
Sihon,  king  of  the  Amorites,  and  Og,  king  of  Bashan. 
Both  of  these  the  Israelites  under  Moses  slew,  and  con- 
fiscated their  lands.  Then  follows  the  incident  of  Balaam 
and  his  prophecies,  as  a  result  of  which  Balak,  king  of 
the  Moabites,  left  the  Israelites  in  undisputed  possession 
of  the  lands  which  they  had  conquered.' 

The  Israelites  were  then  abiding  on  the  border  of  Moab, 
in  Shittim.     There  they  committed  a  sin  by  joining  them- 

I  In  Num.,  chap.  26,  is  recorded  a  "numbering"  of  the  people  in  Moab. 
This  is  the  second  "numbering"  known  in  the  Book  of  Numbers,  the  first 
(Num.,  chap,  i)  having  taken  place  at  Kadesh.  Both  of  these  "numberings 
are  allotted  to  the  P  document  by  most  critics.  The  first  undoubtedly  does 
belong  there.  But  the  second  "nimibering,"  the  one  here  in  Moab,  although 
evidently  edited  by  a  P  redactor,  shows  unmistakable  traces  of  an  E  original. 
Not  only  do  we  have  here  the  names  of  Dathan,  Abiram,  Eliab,  and  Miriam, 
which  are  certainly  E  names,  but  the  abrupt  beginning  of  Num.  26:4  shows 
that  the  P  editor  used  a  document  of  another  source.  Without  going  farther 
into  a  discussion  of  the  linguistic  marks  of  this  section,  we  can  say  that  it  is 
evident  that  we  have  here  an  older  source  which  knew  of  a  "numbering"  in 
the  land  of  Moab.  Our  translation,  "numbering,"  of  the  Hebrew  paqad  is, 
however,  inadequate.  The,  word  really  means  "mustering,"  "enrolling,"  or 
"passing  in  review."  It  is  a  military  term.  This  mustering  can  imply  only 
that  a  people,  a  company  of  soldiers,  here  were  joined  to  Moses'  army,  i.  e., 
mustered  in.  In  this  mustering  were  peoples  from  all  tribes.  These  were 
probably  deserters  from  other  allied  tribes  round  about,  from  those  portions, 
possibly,  of  the  tribes  which  had  deserted  at  Kadesh.  At  any  rate  they  were 
surely  of  Hebrew  descent. 


126        RELATION  BETWEEN  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

selves  to  Baal-Peor,  the  god  of  the  mountain  of  Peor.  For 
this  they  were  afflicted  with  a  plague.  But  the  offenders 
were  promptly  punished,  and  the  plague  was  stayed.' 

It  was  at  this  point  that  Moses  allotted  the  lands  con- 
quered from  Sihon  and  Og.  //  is  significant  that  he  gave 
them  to  the  three  tribes  which  had  apparently  remained 
intact  with  him, namely  Reuben, Gad^  and  Eastern  Manasseh. 

He  did  this  with  the  proviso  that  the  men  of  these  tribes 
should  accompany  their  brethren  of  the  other  tribes  over 
the  Jordan,  and  assist  them  to  conquer  the  west-Jordanic 
lands.  With  these  words  ends  the  E  document  in  the 
Pentateuch.  We  have  no  more  of  it  until  we  get  to  the 
Book  of  Joshua. 

The  Covenant  in  Moab 

The  history  between  the  allotment  of  the  lands  and 
the  march  over  the  Jordan  is  given  in  the  D  document. 

From  this  we  learn  that  Moses  delivered  a  new  law, 
the  law  of  Deuteronomy,  and  died.  In  this  new  code  the 
priesthood  was  definitely  confined  to  the  tribe  of  Levi, 
all  of  whom  were  made  priests.  Thus  we  see  that  the 
decision  made  by  Moses  after  the  rebellion  at  Horeb  had, 
during  the  forty  years  of  wandering,  become  so  engrafted 
into  the  lives  of  the  people  that  now  it  could  be  included 
even  in  their  official  law-book.  This  becomes  easier  of 
explanation  when  we  consider  that  a  great  portion  of  the 
tribes  to  whom  the  E  code  had  been  given  had  left  Moses 
at  Kadesh,  and  that  the  remainder  had  been  overawed 
both  by  the  awful  catastrophe  to  Dathan  and  Abiram 
when  they  had  ventured  to  question  Moses'  authority, 
and  by  his  great  victories  over  Sihon  and  Og.  In  the 
people's  eyes  Moses  had  become  the  mouthpiece  of  God. 

'  Num.  25: 1-5. 


THE  STAY  AT  GILGAL  127 

And  SO  they  were  now  willing  to  accept  without  question 
the  new  code  given  in  Moab. 

In  essentials,  outside  of  the  question  of  the  priesthood, 
it  differs  little  from  the  E  code.  It  simply  amplifies  and 
interprets  it  from  a  humanitarian  viewpoint,  and  does  it 
so  beautifully  that  D  has  become  the  model  for  the  codes 
of  the  civilized  world.  And  even  in  regard  to  the  priest- 
hood, the  old  custom  of  the  E  code  does  not  entirely  dis- 
appear. For  it  is  only  the  holocausts  that  are  restricted 
to  "the  priests  the  Levites;"  the  other  sacrifices,  i.  e.,  the 
peace-offerings,  are  still  to  be  offered  by  any  of  the  people. 

The  D  code  becomes,  then,  the  code  of  Joshua  and  of 
the  people  who  crossed  the  Jordan  with  him.  That  this 
is  true  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  E  passages  in  Joshua 
breathe  the  spirit  of  the  D  document.' 

The  Stay  at  Gilgal 

The  first  halting-place  after  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan 
was  at  Gilgal,  a  city  between  that  river  and  Jericho.' 

1  A  few  examples  may  suffice:  "He  is  God,"  in  Josh.  2:11  and  Deut.  4:39; 
"the  Living  God,"  in  Josh.  3:10  and  Deut.  5:26;  "Lord  of  all  the  earth," 
in  Josh.  3:11  and  Deut.  10:14;  "the  seven  peoples,"  in  Josh.  3:10  and  Deut. 
7:1;  "in  time  to  come,"  in  Josh.  4:6,  21  and  Deut.  6:20.  More  important 
is  the  fact  that  the  punishment  of  Achan  for  stealing  the  devoted  things  at 
Jericho  was  based  on  a  law  found  in  Deuteronomy.  Cf.  Josh.  7:15  and  Deut. 
13:17. 

2  Joshua  was  here  commanded  to  circumcise  the  people.  The  text  here 
shows  that  we  are  dealing  with  the  fusion  of  two  accounts.  In  Josh.  5 : 2  we 
read,"  At  that  time  Yahweh  said  unto  Joshua,  Make  thee  knives  of  flint,  and 
circumcise  again  the  children  of  Israel  the  second  time."  As  we  have  not  heard  of 
a  circumcision  the  words  "again  "and  "the  second  time"  deserve  notice.  The 
original  account  or  accounts  must  have  contained  a  distinct  record  of  two  events 
dealing  with  circumcision  of  Israelites  in  Gilgal.  The  text  as  it  stands  not  only 
is  an  enigma  to  us,  but  was  so  to  the  D  redactor,  who  added  vss.  4-7,  attempt- 
ing to  explain  the  passage  by  saying  that  circumcision  had  not  been  practiced 
in  the  wilderness.  But  this  does  not  explain  why  the  text  says  that  the  opera- 
tion was  performed  a  second  time.     The  first  circumcision  must,  of  course, 


128        RELATION  BETWEEN  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

At  this  point  it  is  necessary  to  notice  a  remarkable  passage 
in  Judg.  2:1-5.  Here  we  are  told  that  a  messenger  of 
Yahweh  came  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim  at  Bethel.  He 
reprimanded  the  inhabitants  of  Bochim  for  having  vio- 
lated the  laws,  contained  in  the  E  code,  regarding  the 
destruction  of  heathen  worship.  This  moved  the  people 
so  much  that  they  began  to  weep,  and  then  they  made  a 
sacrifice  to  Yahweh.  In  doing  this  they  acted,  it  may  be 
remarked,  according  to  the  E,  and  not  according  to  the 
D  code.     How  is  this  passage  to  be  explained  ? 

First  of  all  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  we  left  the 
"house  of  Joseph"  at  Bethel.  They  of  course  had  never 
received  the  D  code.  And  this  messenger  is  represented 
as  speaking  to  a  Hebrew  people,  one  under  the  E  and  not 
the  D  code,  and  one  which  lived  in  Bethel.  What  can  be 
more  reasonable  than  to  suppose  that  it  is  to  this  "house 
of  Joseph"  that  the  messenger  spoke  ? 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Hebrew  to  indicate  that  this 
"messenger  of  Yahweh"  was  Yahweh  himself,  or  indeed 
a  supernatural  being  at  all.  He  may  have  been,  for  all 
we  are  told,  a  mere  man  acting  in  the  name  of  Yahweh. 
He  may  have  been  sent  from  Joshua's  army  to  this  near 
kindred  people.     He  may  have  been  Joshua  himself. 

The  sacrifice  implies  that  there  was  some  agreement 
made  between  this  messenger  and  the  people  of  Bochim. 
Why  not  suppose  that  this  agreement  was  an  alliance 
between  the  people  at  Bethel  and  Joshua's  army?' 

It  is  to  be  noted  that,  while  these  people  did  make  some 

have  been  of  the  peoples  who  had  joined  Moses'  army.  Now,  of  course,  people 
cannot  be  circumcised  twice.  Therefore,  since  there  are  two  great  circumcisions 
implied  in  the  text,  there  would  seem  certainly  to  have  been  another  accession 
of  new  people  to  the  Israelite  army. 

1  This  new  alliance  naturally  explains  the  "second"  circumcision  at  Gilgal. 


THE  SECOND  CONQUEST  129 

sort  of  an  agreement  with  the  "messenger  of  Yahweh," 
they  did  not  abandon  their  E-code  sacrifices.  If  our  sup- 
position be  correct,  then,  we  have  a  portion  of  the  Israehte 
army  which  was  not  under  the  D  code  at  all,  but  which, 
nevertheless,  was  in  active  alliance  with  that  portion  which 
was. 

The  Second  Conquest 

From  Gilgal  the  army  started  out  to  conquer  the  land. 
The  sequence  of  events  in  this  conquest  is  perfectly  plain 
through  the  conquest  of  Jericho  and  Ai,  the  alliance  with 
Gibeon,  and  the  war  with  the  five  kings,  headed  by  the 
King  of  Jerusalem.  From  this  place  on  everyone  agrees 
that  we  have  only  fragments,  and  those  not  placed  in 
chronological  order.  For  example,  the  war  against  Jabin 
of  Hazor,  recorded  in  Josh.  11:1-15,  belongs  to  the  close 
of  Joshua's  life,  while  the  meeting  with  Caleb,'  and  the 
conquest  of  the  south  country^  are  dated  in  the  fifth  year 
after  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan.  The  conquest  of  middle 
Palestine  is  not  mentioned  at  all  in  the  Book  of  Joshua. 
Still,  it  must  have  taken  place,  because  Joshua  went  up 
to  Mount  Ebal  and  erected  there  the  altar  and  the  twelve 
stones.  There  his  people  ratiiied  and  accepted  the  D 
code.^  This  event  took  place  before  he  met  Caleb.  Con- 
sequently we  are  able  to  date  the  conquest  of  middle 
Palestine  at  some  time  before  the  fifth  year  of  the  conquest. 

Directly  after  this  conquest  of  middle  Palestine,  and 
before  the  meeting  with  Caleb,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
was  settled  in  Gilgal.  Of  course  this  Gilgal  cannot  be 
the  one  between  the  Jordan  and  Jericho.  It  is  doubtless 
the  one  in  Ephraim, southeast  of  Shiloh  and  north  of  Bethel. 

I  Josh.  14:6.  2  Josh.  11:16.  3  Josh.  8:30-35. 


130        RELATION  BETWEEN  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

This  Gilgal  is  a  central  place  and  was  well  adapted  for 
a  base  for  the  operations  of  Joshua.  Further,  it  belonged 
to  the  territory  of  Joshua's  o\\ti  tribe,  Ephraim. 

The  Reunion  of  Joshua  and  Caleb 

Here,  in  the  fifth  year  of  the  conquest,  Joshua  received 
Caleb,  son  of  Jephunneh,  and  the  tribe  of  Judah.  Now, 
as  we  have  observed,  this  is  the  first  mention  of  Caleb 
since  the  secession  at  Kadesh.  What  more  natural,  then, 
than  that  Caleb's  very  first  words  should  have  referred 
to  this  event  of  forty-five  years  ago  ?  "Then  the  children 
of  Judah  drew  nigh  to  Joshua  in  Gilgal,  and  Caleb,  the 
son  of  Jephunneh,  the  Kenizzite,  said  unto  him.  Thou 
knowest  the  thing  that  Yahweh  said  unto  Moses  the  man 
of  God,  concerning  me  and  concerning  thee,  in  Kadesh- 
bamea.  Forty  years  old  was  I  when  Closes  the  servant 
of  Yahweh  sent  me  from  Kadesh-barnea  to  spy  out  the 
land;  and  I  brought  him  word  again  as  it  was  in  my  heart. 
Nevertheless  my  brethren  that  went  up  with  me  made  the 
heart  of  the  people  melt:  but  I  wholly  followed  Yahweh 
my  God.  And  Moses  sware  on  that  day,  saying.  Surely 
the  land  whereon  thy  foot  has  trodden  shall  be  an  inherit- 
ance to  thee  and  to  thy  children  forever,  because  thou 
hast  wholly  followed  Yahweh  my  God.  And  now,  behold, 
Yahweh  has  kept  me  alive,  as  he  spake,  these  forty  and 
five  years,  from  the  time  that  Yahweh  spake  this  word 
unto  Moses,  while  Israel  walked  in  the  wilderness:  and 
now,  lo,  I  am  this  day  fourscore  and  five  years  old.  As 
yet  I  am  as  strong  this  day  as  I  was  in  the  day  that  Moses 
sent  me :  as  my  strength  was  then  even  so  is  my  strength 
now,  for  war,  and  to  go  out  and  to  come  in.  Now,  there- 
fore, give  me  this  mountain,  whereof  Yahweh  spake  in  that 


THE  WAR  WITH  JABIN  131 

day;  for  thou  heardest  in  that  day  how  the  Anakim  were 
there,  and  cities  great  and  fenced ;  it  may  be  that  Yahweh 
will  be  with  me,  and  I  shall  drive  them  out,  as  Yahweh 
spake.  And  Joshua  blessed  him,  and  he  gave  Hebron 
unto  Caleb,  the  son  of  Jephunnah,  for  an  inheritance."' 
The  passage  has  been  worth  quoting  in  full.  It  is 
very  evidently  just  the  speech  that  a  man  would  make 
who,  "while  Israel  walked  in  the  wilderness,"  had  been 
living  apart  from  Joshua.  He  now  reminds  Joshua,  his 
old  friend,  of  events  in  which,  forty-five  years  before,  they 
had  borne  their  part  together,  calling  his  attention  even 
to  small  details.  He  asks  Joshua  to  assist  him  in  keeping 
possession  of  the  land  granted  him  so  many  years  before 
by  Moses.  And  Joshua,  touched,  and  perhaps  only  too 
willing  to  conciliate  this  powerful  tribe  of  Judah  and  to 
amalgamate  it  into  his  own  confederacy,  consents,  and 
grants  him  permission  to  occupy  Hebron.  No  mention  is 
made,  however,  at  this  time,  of  Judah's  accepting  the  D 
code.  It  is  to  be  supposed  that  the  tribe  still  retained  the  E 
code,  with  which  it  had  seceded  at  Kadesh. 

The  War  with  Jabin 

After  this,  we  know  that  Joshua  went  on  conquering 
land  after  land,  until  finally  he  succeeded  in  overcoming 
Jabin,  king  of  Hazor.  In  this  conquest  Joshua  is  repre- 
sented as  meeting  his  enemy  in  northern  Palestine 
near  the  waters  of  Merom.^  But  we  know  that  he 
was  not  alone  in  this  war.  Another  army  of  Israelites, 
under  the  command  of  Deborah  and  Barak,  met  another 
army  of  this  king  Jabin  of  Hazor  under  the  command  of 
his  general  Sisera,  in  the  valley  of  Jezreel.  ^    In  both  battles, 

I  Josh.  14:6-13.  *  Josh.  11:7-16.  3  Judg.  4:1 — 5:31. 


132        RELATION  BETWEEN  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

that  in  the  north  and  that  in  the  south,  the  hosts  of  Israel 
were  successful,  and  Jabin  was  utterly  routed. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  this  second  army,  under 
Deborah  and  Barak,  there  were  not  complete  tribes,  but 
only  "remnants"  of  tribes.  These  remnants,  moreover, 
were  of  Ephraim,  Benjamin,  Machir  (a  clan  of  Manasseh), 
Zebulon,  Issachar,  and  Naphtali.  Moreover,  in  the  Song 
of  Deborah,  Dan  and  Asher  are  reproached  for  not  coming 
up  to  help  in  the  battle.  Now  all  of  these  tribes,  with  the 
exception  of  Issachar,  are  mentioned  in  that  passage  in 
Judges'  which,  as  we  have  seen,  probably  refers  to  Pales- 
tinian conquests  after  Kadesh  but  before  the  arrival  of 
Joshua.  Does  not  the  suggestion  naturally  follow  that 
most  of  the  army  of  Deborah  and  Barak  may  have  con- 
sisted of  those  Hebrew  peoples  which  had  been  in  the  land 
before  Joshua  came  ? 

The  Covenant  in  Shiloh 

This  war  with  Jabin  of  Hazor  completed  the  conquest 
of  Canaan.  It  would  be  the  most  natural  thing  in  the 
world  if,  after  such  an  event,  the  various  Hebrew  peoples 
of  the  land  should  meet  together  to  form  a  more  perfect 
coalition,  both  political  and  religious.  The  next  thing 
we  find  in  the  E  document  is  that  such  a  meeting  actually 
did  take  place.''  The  people  met  together  at  Shiloh,^ 
which  was  an  old  sanctuary  and  at  this  time  had  a  temple. "* 

I  Judg.  i:i — 2:5.  =  Josh.  24:1-320. 

3  Josh.  24:1,  25.  It  is  true  that  the  Hebrew  te.xt  says  Shechem.  But 
all  the  old  Greek  texts  give  Shiloh,  and  as  they  are  hundreds  of  years  older 
than  our  Hebrew,  they  are,  in  a  matter  like  this,  to  be  accepted.  We  can  see 
just  when  the  corruption  arose  in  the  Hebrew  te.xt,  for  the  version  of  Lucian, 
which  may  go  back  to  a  text  as  late  as  the  time  of  Christ,  is  the  first  to  have 
Shechem  in  this  place.  The  Syriac  Pcshitta,  of  the  same  period  as  the  Lucianic 
text,  also  gives  the  later  reading. 

4  Josh.  24:26. 


THE  COVENANT  IN  SHILOH  133 

Here  Joshua  gathered  together  all  the  tribes  of  Israel, 
and  recited  for  them  their  history  from  the  departure  of 
Abraham  from  the  old  Hebrew  home  in  Eber-hannahar, 
telling  of  Abraham's  conversion  to  the  Yahweh  worship, 
his  settlement  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  his  descendants, 
Isaac,  Jacob,  and  Esau,  Esau's  taking  possession  of  Seir, 
and  how  Jacob  and  his  children  went  down  into  Egj^t. 
Then  he  told  how  God  sent  Moses  and  Aaron,  who  plagued 
Egypt,  and  at  last  brought  their  fathers  out  of  the  land  of 
bondage.  He  recounted  how  they  came  to  the  Red  Sea, 
where  Yahweh  saved  them.  He  then  reminded  them  of 
the  events  of  the  conquest  of  the  east-Jordanic  lands,  of 
the  capturing  of  Jericho,  and  finally  of  the  subduing  of 
the  Canaanitic  peoples. 

He  then  demanded  of  the  people  whether  they  would 
serve  Yahweh  or  some  heathen  God.  Now,  we  have  no 
intimation  of  any  lapse  from  faith  on  the  part  of  the  people 
who  came  in  with  Joshua.  But  we  have  seen  that  the 
people  of  Bochim  had  lapsed  from  their  faith,'  and  that 
these  people  were  probably  among  the  seceders  at  Kadesh. 
If  this  were  true  of  one  of  the  seceding  tribes,  it  may  well 
have  been  true  of  the  others.''  If  this  be  true,  it  gives 
additional  point  to  Joshua's  cry,  "As  for  me  and  my 
house,  we  will  serve  Yahweh!" 

The  people  with  one  accord  accepted  Yahweh's  reli- 
gion, and  agreed  to  turn  from  their  heathen  gods.  Joshua 
and  the  people  thereupon  made  a  covenant  to  that  eft'ect.^ 
Then  we  read  that  Joshua  "set  them  a  statute  and  an 
ordinance"  in  Shiloh.  Now  a  "statute,"  as  we  have  seen, 
is  a  religious  or  ceremonial  law.  The  word  "ordinance" 
here  is  not  a  correct  translation.     The  original  is  mishpat, 

ijudg.  2:1-5.  2  Cf.  Judg.  4:1-3.  3  Josh.  24:25. 


134        RELATION  BETWEEN  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

meaning  a  "judgment,"  or  a  civil  law.  Joshua  wrote 
these,  though,  not  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  i.  e., 
Deuteronomy,  but  in  the  Book  of  the  Law  of  Elohim, 
i.  e.,  the  E  code. 

It  is  easy  to  see  why  this  should  have  been  the  case, 
for  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  the  tribes  which  seceded  at 
Kadesh  would  ever  have  agreed  at  this  time  to  accept  the 
D  code,  which  had  been  given  long  after  they  had  left 
the  tribes  in  the  wilderness,  and  which  had  thus  been  given 
to  only  a  portion  of  the  original  confederation. 

The  E  code,  then,  became  the  law  for  all  the  confed- 
erated peoples  which  made  the  covenant  at  Shiloh,  and 
it  remained  so  at  least  for  the  rest  of  the  period  of  the 
judges,  as  was  observed  in  our  consideration  of  the  non- 
Levitical  sacrifices.  The  D  code  was  for  the  time  dis- 
carded. It  remained  written  on  the  stones  at  the  moun- 
tain of  Ebal,  and  certainly  other  copies  of  it  were  in  exist- 
ence, but  for  the  people  as  a  whole  it  fell  into  disuse,  at 
least  for  the  time  being. 

Conclusion 

We  have  now  brought  down  the  history  of  the  E  and  D 
codes  from  the  leaving  of  Egypt  to  the  death  of  Joshua. 
We  have  seen  that,  for  a  large  portion  of  the  people — 
those  who  seceded  at  Kadesh — the  E  code  was  the  only 
code  acknowledged  in  this  period,  and  that  it  was  to  the 
other  portion  only — those  who  remained  with  INIoses — 
that  the  D  code  was  given.  Lastly,  we  have  seen  that 
after  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  when  all  the  tribes  were 
reunited,  it  was  on  the  basis  of  E,  and  not  of  D,  and  that  D 
sank  into  disuse  throughout  the  period  of  the  judges, 
during  which  time  the  E  code,  non-Levitical  sacrifices 
included,  was  in  force  among  the  people. 


CHAPTER  X 
The  Language  of  the  E  and  D  Documents 

The  E  sections  of  the  Hexateuch  have  a  distinct  voca- 
bulary. We  have  postulated  for  the  P  document  a  P  or 
Levitical  dialect.  The  arguments  then  given  for  the 
existence  of  a  dialect  peculiar  to  the  tribe  of  Levi  will 
serve  equally  well  here  for  the  language  of  E,  We  find 
that  Joshua,  who  had  much  to  do  with  the  E  code,  was 
of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim.  The  code  was  finally  ratified 
in  Shiloh,  which  was  in  the  territory  of  Ephraim.  In  the 
E  sections  of  Genesis  and  Joshua  particular  attention  is 
paid  to  the  enumeration  of  the  cities  of  Ephraim.  After  the 
split  of  the  kingdom,  as  we  have  seen,  the  E  code  was  in 
force  in  the  Northern  Kingdom,  and  especially  in  Ephraim. 
These  facts  all  point  to  one  conclusion,  namely,  that  the 
language  of  the  E  code  was  the  tribal  dialect  of  the  tribe 
of  Ephraim.' 

Not  only  is  the  D  code  based  upon  the  E  code,  but  its 

I  Some  sections  of  the  E  document  are  not  so  distinct  in  language  as  critical 
scholars  generally  assume  when  they  assign  them  to  E.  This  applies  especially 
to  Genesis,  e.  g.,  Gen.  20:1-18;  21:22-34;  26:1,6-23;  26:26-33;  35:8;  the 
E  sections  of  chap.  37;  40:15;  41:38-40;  45:16-21;  45:27;  46:5;  50:15-21. 
It  applies  also  to  Joshua  24:326,  ^t,.  In  none  of  these  sections  is  scarcely  a 
word  that  is  not  found  in  the  later  P  document  and  code,  although  some  of 
the  words  may  not  be  so  common  in  P  as  in  E.  It  is,  however,  evident  that 
this  E  language  was  known  to  P.  There  seems  to  be  no  cogent  reason,  there- 
fore, why  these  so-called  E  sections  should  not  be  ascribed  to  P.  If  they  are 
to  be  called  E,  they  ought  at  least  to  be  separated  from  the  early  E,  and  called 
E2  sections.  An  exception  to  this  must  be  made  in  the  case  of  three  words: 
the  word  for  "pray,"  in  Gen.  20:7,  17;  the  word  for  "on  account  of,"  in 
Gen.  21:25;  26:32;  and  the  word  for  "dream,"  in  Gen.  20:3,  6.  These 
three  words  alone,  of  course,  are  not  enough  to  separate  these  documents  from 
the  late  P,  or  from  the  late  E  document. 

^35 


136      THE  LANGUAGE  OF  THE  E  AND  D  DOCUMENTS 

language,  too,  comes  nearest  to  that  of  E.  We  found  that 
the  D  code  was  finally  recorded  on  the  stones  at  Ebal  and 
Gerizim,  i.  e.,  at  Shechem.  May  not  the  language  of  D 
be  a  local  variation  of  the  Ephraimite  dialect,  peculiar 
to  the  Shechem  region  ? 


CHAPTER  XI 

The  J  Document 

It  may  be  that  there  is  no  J  code  in  the  Hexateuch,  but 
only  fragments  of  a  J  document.  The  sections  which 
have  been  ordinarily  considered  as  making  up  that  code, 
Exod.,  chap.  34,  really  seem  to  belong,  as  we  have  seen, 
to  the  E  code.  It  is  perfectly  possible  that  there  was  a  J 
code  originally,  but  that  it  was  so  similar  to  the  E  code 
that  it  was  dropped  in  favor  of  the  latter  at  the  time  of  the 
compilation.  What  little  there  is  to  be  said  about  the 
J  document  may  be  divided  into  three  heads :  date,  unity, 
and  language. 

I.     Date 

Modern  critics  generally  assign  the  J  document  to  ca. 
850-800  B.  c.  It  may,  they  say,  have  been  a  century 
earlier  than  this.  It  cannot,  however,  so  they  claim,  have 
preceded  the  time  of  David,  because  there  is,  in  a  J  section 
in  Num.  21:14,  15,  a  quotation  from  the  "Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Yahweh,"  and  in  the  Book  of  Samuel  there  is  a 
quotation  from  the  same  book  regarding  David.  But 
this  is  really  not  conclusive,  for  this  quotation  may  have 
been  added  from  the  "Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh"  at 
the  time  when  the  documents  were  combined.  There  is 
no  reason  why  J  cannot  be  as  early  as  E,  namely  the  time 
of  the  Covenant  at  Horeb.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that 
it  is  earlier  or  later. 

II.     Unity 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  there  was  an  original  J  docu- 
ment, but  from  the  remains  which  we  have  of  that  docu- 

137 


138  THE  J  DOCUMENT 

ment  in  our  Hexateuch  we  are  forced  to  say  the  same  thing 
of  it  as  we  have  already  said  of  E  and  P,  namely,  that  there 
have  been  only  fragments  preserved  to  us.  It  is  admitted 
on  all  hands  that  in  large  sections  of  Genesis,  Exodus, 
Numbers,  and  Joshua,  J  and  E  have  been  so  fused  together 
that  it  is  now  impossible  ever  to  divide  them.  Nor  is  this 
necessary,  for  J  and  E  relate  the  same  history  and  the  same 
events.  Any  attempt  completely  to  divide  these  docu- 
ments can  only  be  for  the  satisfaction  of  a  literary  curiosity. 
It  is  a  fact  of  greater  importance  that  we  find  J  fused 
with  later  P  passages,  and  borrowing  from  P,  e.  g.,  when  J, 
in  Exod.  chaps.  19,  24,  34,  uses  Sinai  for  Horeb.  It  will  be 
shown  in  a  later  chapter  that  these  two  mountains  are  not 
identical  and  cannot  be  considered  as  one.  The  occur- 
rence of  Sinai  in  a  J  document  can  be  explained  only  on 
the  supposition  that  the  priestly  redactor,  in  compiling 
J  sections  with  P,  assumed  that  any  reference  in  J  to  the 
mountain  of  the  law-giving  must  be  to  the  Sinai  of  the  P 
document.  Other  cases  of  the  same  sort,  but  of  less 
importance,  will  be  noted  below. 

III.     Language 

First  of  all,  the  language  is  the  dialect  of  Judah.  We 
have  already  seen  that  P  represents  the  dialect  of  Levi, 
and  E  and  D  the  dialect  of  Ephraim.  J  centers  itself 
around  places  in  Judah,  especially  around  Hebron.  That 
city  was  the  first  capital  of  David.  Caleb,  prince  of  Judah, 
received  it  as  his  inheritance  and  capital.  At  a  later  time 
it  was  granted  to  Aaron's  family  as  a  Levitical  city.  This 
last  fact  may  account  for  a  compilation  of  J  and  P  in 
Hebron,  and  a  fusion  of  those  documents.  Besides  all  this, 
the  language  is  so  distinct  that  it  seems  certainly  a  tribal 


DIALECTICAL  DENOTATIONS  OF  WORDS  I39 

dialect.    We  cannot  go  far  wrong  in  assuming  it  to  be 
the  tribal  dialect  of  Judah.' 


The  difficulty  that  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  language  offers  to 
beginners  is  well  known.  The  explanation  of  this  difficulty  is  not 
to  be  found  in  its  peculiar  alphabet,  because  that  is  soon  mastered. 
Nor  is  it  to  be  found  in  the  flexion  of  the  words,  nor  in  the  syntax,  in 
both  which  respects  the  Hebrew  is  far  simpler  than  either  Greek  or 
Latin.  Nor  does  Hebrew  possess  a  large  vocabulary.  The  real 
difficulty  lies  in  the  many  and  varied  meanings  that  Hebrew  words 

possess. 

A  close  study  of  this  difficulty  reveals  the  fact  that  it  arises  from 
the  fusion  into  one  book  of  the  Uterary  products  of  many  and  varied 
dialects.  This  is  the  case,  not  only  in  the  Hexateuch,  but  in  most  of 
the  historical  books,  especially  in  Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chron- 
icles, which  we  know  were  compiled  from  a  large  number  of  original 
documents.  It  is  also  the  case  in  some  of  the  prophets,  Isaiah  and 
Zechariah  especially.  Proverbs  and  Psahns  belong  to  the  same  class. 
They  are  compiled  from  a  large  number  of  documents,  which  origi- 
nated in  several  tribes,  and  which  bear,  therefore,  the  dialectic  pecu- 
liarities pertaining  to  those  tribes. 

By  calling  attention  to  these  dialectic  pecuUarities  we  do  not  desire 
to  be  construed  as  denying  the  continuous  development  of  the  Hebrew 
language.     But  this  law  of  development  may  be  extended  to  dialects 

as  well. 

The  study  of  these  linguistic  peculiarities  in  the  Hexateuch  seems 
to  reveal  the  following  facts: 

I.     Dialectical  Denotations  of  Words 
A  single  Hebrew  word  has  often  several  denotations,  each  of  which 
belongs  to  a  different  tribe;  as,  e.  g.: 

Yarek.     In  Judah  (J  and  the  Toledoth  Book)  it  signifies  "thigh" 

I  Some  sections  of  the  J  document  in  Genesis  differ  from  the  other  J  sec- 
tions in  much  the  same  way  that  we  saw  prevailing  in  the  E  document.  As 
these  sections,  however,  contain  the  name  of  Yahweh,  they  must  come  from 
a  J  source,  but  belong  to  later  strata  of  the  J  literature 


I40  THE  J  DOCUMENT 

(euphemistic  for  inemhrum  virile.y  In  Benjamin  it  meant  "side" 
or  "loin."^     In  Levi  it  denoted  "base,"  "seat,"  or  "standard." 

Paqad.  In  Judah  it  meant  "pay  attention  to,"  "attend  to," 
"observe;"  in  Ephraim,  "visit,"  "visit  upon,"  "punish;"  in  Levi, 
"appoint,"  "muster,"  "pass  in  review." 

Mink  a.  In  Ephraim  it  signified  "present;"  in  Judah,  "offering;" 
in  Levi,  "meal-offering." 

II.     Modifications  of  Meaning  of  Words 

Words  common  to  all  the  tribes  are  modified  in  their  denotations 
in  the  course  of  the  development  of  the  language;  e.  g. : 

HatdL     In  JED  it  equals  "sin;"  in  P,  "sin"  and  "sin-offering." 
Maqorn.     In  JED,  "sanctuary;"    in  P,  "place." 
MiSpe^ah.     In  Judah  (J  and  P'),  "kindred"  (Greek  o-wyeveia); 
in  Levi  (P^),  "clan"  (Greek  c^vXt/). 

YaraS.  In  Ephraim  (E'),  "take  possession  of,"  "drive  out;"  in 
Levi  (P^  E^),  "inherit." 

'Ahaz.     In  Ephraim  (E'  J'  ?),  "seize;"  in  Levi,  "to  possess." 
MiSpat.     In  P'  and  JED,  "judgment;"  in  P%  "manner,"  "cere- 
mony. 

III.     Tribal  Vocabulary 

Each  tribe  has  in  a  number  of  cases  its  own  peculiar  word  to 
express  a  common  idea;  e.  g. : 

"Handmaid."  In  Judah  (J  and  P'),  SiphJjah;  in  Ephraim  and 
Levi  (EDP^),  'amah. 

"Raiment."  In  Judah  and  Levi  (J  and  P),  bcged;  in  Ephraim 
(E),  salniah  and  simlah. 

"I."     In  JEDPS  anoki;  in  P%  'ani. 

"Prince."     In  JED,  ifar;  in  P,  wail'. 

"Tribe."  In  JED,  lebet  (as  also  in  P  in  the  sense  of  a  subdivision 
of  a  tribe) ;  in  P,  matte. 

"Dwell."     In  J,  yaSab;  in  D,  {le)^akken;  in  P,  ^akan. 

"Thigh"  (euphemistic).  In  J,  yarek;   in  P,  halasayim. 

'  Exod.  1:5.  ^ 

2  Judg.  3:16,  21. 


CHAPTER  XII 

Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — The  Settlements  in 

Egypt 

Most  critics  claim,  of  course,  that  the  discrepancies 
between  the  four  documents  are  due  to  their  being  variants 
of  one  and  the  same  story,  due  to  different  traditions. 
While  this  is  doubtless  sufficient  explanation  of  such  differ- 
ences as  exist  between  J,  E,  and  D,  it  will  not  at  aU  suffice 
to  explain  those  between  P  and  the  other  three  documents. 
In  a  comparison  of  these  four  documents,  such  as  we  are 
about  to  undertake,  it  is  impossible  to  commence  before 
the  thirty-ninth  chapter  of  Genesis,  because  the  D  docu- 
ment begins  properly  only  with  the  settlement  in  Egypt. 
Comparisons  of  the  three  documents  visible  before  that 
time  are  not  to  be  a  part  of  this  study,  which  from  this 
point  on  will  deal  more  particularly  with  the  events  of  the 
Exodus  and  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 

The  differences  between  what  we  may  assume  to  be  the 
composite  narrative  of  JED  and  the  narrative  of  P  are  of 
such  a  radical  nature  as  to  demand  careful  consideration. 
Some  of  the  discrepancies  are  due,  doubtless,  to  errors 
and  interpolations  which  have  crept  into  the  modern 
Hebrew  Massoretic  text  during  the  ages.  This  may  be 
seen  clearly  when  comparisons  are  made  with  the  ancient 
versions,  such  as  the  LXX,  the  Syriac,  and  the  Aramaic 
translations.  But  even  this  is  not  sufficient  to  explain 
the  greater  number  of  discrepancies.  Let  us  see  what 
some  of  these  differences  are.  And,  first  of  all,  let  us 
examine  the  accounts  of  the  settlements  in  Egypt. 

141 


142  THE  SETTLEMENTS  IN  EGYPT 

These  are  given  in  Gen.  46:28 — 47:12.  It  is  almost 
impossible  to  accept  our  Hebrew  text  as  it  stands.  Quite 
evidently  there  have  been  corruptions.  The  most  accurate 
text  which  lower  criticism  is  able  to  afford  us  is  based 
chiefly  on  the  LXX.  For  the  sake  of  convenience  the 
two  accounts,  according  to  divisions  of  this  reconstructed 
text,  are  here  presented  side  by  side. 

J  P 

Gen.    46:28:         And    he    sent 
Judah   before   them,   unto   Joseph, 
into  the  land  of  Raamses. 
29.  And  Joseph  made  ready  his 

chariots,  and  went  up  to  meet  Israel 

his  father,  at  Heroo-polis;   and  he 

presented  himself  unto  him,  and  fell 

on  his  neck,  and  wept  on  his  neck  a 

good   while.     30.  And   Israel   said 

unto  Joseph,  Now  let  me  die,  since 

I  have  seen  thy  face,  that  thou  art 

yet    ahve.     31.  And    Joseph    said 

unto   his   brethren,    and   unto   his 

father's  house,  I  will  go  up,  and  will 

tell  Pharaoh,  and  will  say  unto  him. 

My  brethren,  and  my  father's  house, 

which  were  in  the  land  of  Canaan, 
are   come   unto   me;    32.  and   the 

men  are  shepherds,  for  they  have 

been  keepers  of  cattle;    and  they 

have  brought  their  flocks,  and  their 

herds,  and  all  that  they  have.     ^^. 

And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when 

Pharaoh  shall  call  you,  and  shall 

say.    What    is    your    occupation? 

34.  that  ye  shall  say,  Thy  servants 

have  been  keepers  of  cattle,  from 

our  youth  even  until  now,  both  we  > 

and  our  fathers:   that  ye  may  dwell 

in  the  land  of  Goshen  of  Arabia;  for 


THE  SETTLEMENTS  IN  EGYPT 


143 


every  shepherd  is  an  abomination 
unto  the  Egyptians.  47:1:  Then 
Joseph  went  in,  and  told  Pharaoh,' 
and  said,  My  father  and  my  breth- 
ren and  their  flocks  and  their  herds, 
and  all  that  they  have,  are  come  out 
of  the  land  of  Canaan;  and  behold, 
they  are  in  the  land  of  Goshen. 
2.  And  from  among  his  brethren  he 
took  five  men,  and  presented  them 
imto  Pharaoh.  3.  And  Pharoah 
said  unto  the  brethren  0}  Joseph, 
What  is  your  occupation?  And 
they  said  unto  Pharaoh,  Thy  ser- 
vants are  shepherds,  both  we  and 
our  fathers.  4.  And  they  said  unto 
Pharaoh,  To  sojourn  in  the  land 
are  we  come,  for  there  is  no  pasture 
for  thy  servant's  flocks;  for  the 
famine  is  sore  in  the  land  of  Canaan: 
now,  therefore,  we  pray  thee,  let 
thy  servants  dwell  in  the  land  of 
Goshen.  5.  And  Pharaoh  said  un- 
to Joseph,  In  the  land  of  Goshen  let 
them  dwell;  and  if  thou  knowest 
any  able  men  among  them,  then 
make  them  rulers  over  my  cattle. 


6.  And  Jacob  and  his  sons  came 
into  Egypt  to  Joseph.  And  Pha- 
raoh, the  king  of  Egypt  heard 
(thereof).  And  Pharaoh  spake  im- 
to Joseph,  saying,  Thy  father  and 
thy  brethren  are  come  unto  thee; 
behold,  the  land  of  Egypt  is  before 
thee;  in  the  best  of  the  land  make 
thy  father  and  thy  brethren  to 
dwell.     7.  And  Joseph  brought  in 


I  Codex  Alexandrinus   (Greek)    reads,   "And  Pharaoh  went   in  and  told 
Joseph." 


144 


THE  SETTLEMENTS  IN  EGYPT 


Jacob,  his  father,  and  set  him  before 
Pharaoh:  and  Jacob  blessed  Pha- 
raoh. 8.  And  Pharaoh  said  unto 
Jacob,  How  many  are  the  days  of 
the  years  of  thy  Hfe  ?  9.  And 
Jacob  said  unto  Pharaoh, 


Few  and  evil  have  been  the  days 
of  the  years  of  my  life. 


The  days  of  the  years  of  my  pil- 
grimage are  an  hundred  and  thirty 
years;' 


but  they  have  not  attained  unto  the 
days  of  the  years  of  the  life  of  my 
fathers  in  the  days  of  their  pil- 
grimage.' 

10.  And  Jacob  blessed  Pharaoh, 
and  went  out  from  the  presence  of 
Pharaoh.     11.  And  Joseph  placed 
his  father  and  his  brethren  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  in  the  best  land,  in 
the  land  of  Raamses,  as  Pharaoh 
had  commanded. 
12.  And    Joseph    nourished    his 
father,  and  his  brethren,  and  all  his 
father's  household  with  bread,  ac- 
cording to  their  families. 

These,  then,  are  the  stories  of  the  settlement  in  Egypt. 
According  to  J  and  its  kindred  documents,  Israel  and  his 
sons  were  settled  in  the  land  of  Goshen.  In  P  the  settle- 
ment of  Jacob  is  confined  to  the  land  of  Raamses.  These 
two  districts  are  not  by  any  means  the  same. 

Land  of  Goshen 

Goshen  was  the  capital  of  the  twentieth  nome  of  Egypt, 
Arabia,  and  was  that  part  of  the  Delta  east  of  the  Nile 

'  This  passage,  while  P  in  character,  evidently  belongs  to  the  Toledoth  Book, 
because  of  the  exactness  of  the  date  and  its  quaint  language.  We  have  shown 
above  that  this  book  is  an  early  document. 


LAND  OF  RAAMSES  145 

and  bordering  on  it,  i.  e.,  the  district  in  the  vicinity  of 
Belbeis,  Saft  el-Henneh,  and  Abu  Hamad.  ^ 

Land  of  Raamses 

But  in  P  it  is  not  in  Goshen,  but  in  "the  land  of  Raam- 
ses" that  the  people  are  settled.  "The  land  of  Raamses," 
of  course,  means  the  land  around  the  city  of  Raamses, 
just  as  "the  land  of  Goshen"  means  the  land  around  the 
city  of  Goshen.  We  know  that  Ramses  II  built  a  city 
named  after  himself.^  This  city  was  rebuilt  by  Ramses 
III,  though  it  was  still  called  after  the  name  of  the  former 
builder.'^  Petrie  has  advanced  the  suggestion  that  this 
city  of  Raamses  was  located  at  the  modern  Tel  el-Rota- 
bieh,4  but  his  suggestion  seems  to  be  on  not  very  sufficient 
grounds.  In  the  manuscript  of  Gamurrini  a  pious  woman 
relates  that  she  left  Heroo-polis  to  go  to  Goshen,  which 
was  sixteen  miles  away,  and  that  on  her  journey  she  passed 

1  Pe(r)-Soped  was  the  ancient  name  of  the  modern  Saft  el-Henneh,  and 
was  the  old  capital  of  the  nome  of  Arabia.  Cf.  Naville,  Saft  el-Henneh,  p.  75. 
In  Coptic,  Goshen,  LXX  Gesem,  is  called  Kos,  which  the  Greeks  rendered  Fha- 
Kusa,  Latin  Phacusa.  Pha  is  the  definite  article.  Kos  or  Kusa  is  an  abbrevia- 
tion of  Kesem,  which  latter  is  found  in  Egyptian  inscriptions.  Gesem  and 
Kesem  are,  of  course,  variants  of  the  same  name.  Consequently  Goshen, 
or  Kesem,  or  Gesem,  is  the  city-land  of  Kesem  known  in  the  monuments,  i.  e., 
the  capital  of  the  twentieth  nome.  Moreover,  in  the  Arabic  version  of  Saadiah 
Gaon,  Goshen  is  rendered  Sadir,  which  Quatremere  locates  at  Abbaseh,  in  the 
region  of  the  modern  Saft  el-Henneh.  With  this  Abu  Said  agrees.  Macrizi 
states  that  Belbeis  is  in  this  land. 

2  The  city  of  Ramses  II  existed  in  the  twenty-first  year  of  that  king,  for  the 
ambassadors  of  the  Hittite  king  were  received  by  him  there  in  that  year.  Cf. 
Lepsius,  Denkmdler,  III,  pi.  146,  1.  2.  According  to  Lepsius,  Denkmdler,  Text, 
Part  IV,  pi.  49,  this  city,  "House  of  Ramses  (II) — Meriamon  "  was  again 
referred  to  in  Ramses  II's  twenty-ninth  year. 

3  Ramses  III  states,  in  Papyrus  Harris,  pi.  60,  1.  2,  "  I  rebuilt  the  great  temple, 
(and)  laboriously  enlarged  the  same,  in  the  House  of  Sutekh  of  Ramses  (II) — 
Meriamon." 

4  Cf.  Hyksos  and  Israelite  Cities,  p.  28. 


'^ 


4 


t5 


tj-2 


^' 


^ 


If  J 

5) 


I 


5) 


«M 


g     ^3 


LAND  OF  RAAMSES  147 

through  the  city  of  Raamses,  which  was  four  miles  from 
Goshen,  the  capital  of  Arabia.  This  would  correspond 
to  the  location  of  the  modern  Tel  el-Kebir,  a  great  mound 
which  has  not  yet  been  explored.  Here  we  feel  inclined 
to  locate  the  city  and  "land"  of  Raamses.  This  location 
would  tally  perfectly  with  all  the  data  in  the  monuments, 
the  classical  authors,  and  the  Bible.  If  this  prove  to  be 
correct,  the  city  of  Raamses  must  have  belonged  to  the 
Nome  of  the  East,  the  eighth  nome  of  Lower  Egypt,  the 
capital  of  which  was  Pithom.  At  any  rate,  Raamses  is 
not  the  same  as  Goshen. 

Now  if,  as  we  have  seen  good  reason  for  believing,  the 
documents  were  composed  within  forty  or  fifty  years 
after  the  leaving  of  Egypt,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  their 
authors  should  have  been  so  confused  and  so  forgetful 
that  they  confounded  two  city-lands  so  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate as  Goshen  and  Raamses,  and  were  ignorant  as  to 
which  was  really  the  Israelite  habitat  when  in  Egypt. 
There  suggests  itself  at  once  the  hypothetical  question, 
Were  there  two  exodi,  one  from  Raamses  and  the  other  from 
Goshen  ? 


CHAPTER  XIII 

Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — The  Servitudes  in 

Egypt 

In  the  story  of  the  oppression,  the  following  sections 
should  be  assigned  to  P:  Exod.  i :  1-7,'  1 16-14;  2: 23-25. 
The  other  sections  of  the  five  first  chapters  of  Exodus 
belong  to  JE. 

In  the  JE  account  there  are  taskmasters  appointed  over 
the  Israelites,  and  these  force  them  to  do  field  labor  and 
to  make  bricks  without  straw.  In  the  P  document,  they 
are  forced  to  do  a  similar  kind  of  serf  labor,  but  there  is 
nothing  mentioned  of  anything  like  making  bricks  without 
straw.  The  P  account  further  mentions — which  is  not 
touched  on  in  JE — that  they  built  store-cities  for  Pharaoh, 
Pithom,  and  Raamses.''  Now  the  store-city  of  Pithom 
has  been  discovered  by  Naville  at  the  modern  Tel  el- 
Maskhutah.^  It  is  a  city  which,  although  dating  from 
early  times,  was  really  built  by  Ramses  II  and  rebuilt  by 

1  This  section,  while  P  in  character,  belongs  to  the  Toledoth  Book:  see 
above,  pp.  54  f. 

2  Exod.  I -.lib. 

3  Pithom,  originally  Pe(r)-Tum  or  Pe(r)-Atum,  meaning  "House  of  Tum," 
or  "House  of  Atum,"  the  city  of  the  sun-god  Tum  or  Atum,  who  was  the  prede- 
cessor of  Re,  the  sun-god  of  Heliopolis,  was  the  capital  of  the  eighth  nome  of 
Lower  Egypt,  the  civil  name  of  which  was  the  Eastern  Nome.  In  later  times 
the  nome  was  also  called  "the  Heroopolitan."  On  the  eastern  border  of  this 
nome  was  a  city  and  a  land  called  Succoth,  the  ancient  name  of  which  was  "Door 
of  the  East."  This  city  was  located  on  the  northern  end  of  Lake  Timsah, 
"Crocodile  Lake."  Naville  has  identified  Pithom  and  Succoth,  but  on  insuffi- 
cient grounds.  Succoth  was  several  miles  east  of  Pithom.  Nor  did  Lake  Tim- 
sah, on  which  Succoth  was  situated,  extend  west  as  far  as  Pithom  in  the  Nine- 
teenth Dynasty.     The  marsh  land  to  the  east  of  Pithom  was,  in  the  time  of  Mer- 

148 


THE  SERVITUDES  IN  EGYPT  149 

Ramses  III.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  the  bricks 
of  the  city  were  made  without  straw.  Raamses  we  have 
already  located  at  the  modern  Tel  el-Kebir.'     To  these 

neptah,  called  "The  Pools  of  Pithom,"  but  this  was  a  region  quite  distinct  from 
Lake  Timsah. 

Naville  assumes  also  that  Heroo-polis,  the  Roman  Ero,  is  identical  with 
Pithom,  because  the  Red  Sea  is  called  the  " Heroopolitan  Gulf."  And  indeed 
in  the  Bohairic  version  Heroo-polis  is  rendered  Pithom,  not  because  they  were 
identical  but  because  Pithom  was  the  capital  of  the  nome.  It  is  certain  that 
Heroo-polis  was  located  on  the  shore  (clusma),  of  that  gulf.  But  it  is  not  prob- 
able that  the  gulf  extended  up  to  Pithom  at  this  time.  Ptolemy  the  geographer 
asserts  twice  that  Ero  was  only  one-sixth  of  a  degree  from  the  head  or  upper  end 
of  the  Arabian  Gulf.  Pliny  and  Strabo  assert  likewise  that  Heroo-poHs  was 
located  on  the  Arabian  Gulf.  But  when  Ptolemy  dug  his  soft-water  canal, 
connecting  the  Nile  with  the  Eastern  Nome,  it  passed  by  Arsinoe,  and  still  was 
not  connected  with  the  Bitter  Lakes.  This  makes  it  impossible  that  the  Arabian 
Gulf  should  have  extended  to  Pithom  in  the  time  of  Ptolemy.  Furthermore, 
Herodotus  says  that  it  was  one  thousand  stadia  from  Mount  Casius.  As  we 
must  admit  that  Herodotus  used  the  shorter  stadium  (ninety-eight  meters),  his 
statement  places  the  head  of  the  Arabian  Gulf  near  the  northern  end  of  the  pres- 
ent Bitter  Lakes.  Here  then  Heroo-polis  was  located.  It  was  here,  according 
to  the  JE  document,  that  Joseph  met  his  father  when  he  came  into  Egypt.  It  is 
of  great  importance  that  we  bear  in  mind  that  the  Arabian  Gulf  extended  up  to 
this  point,  and  included  the  Bitter  Lakes,  which  at  this  time  stretched  a  little 
farther  north  than  they  do  at  present. 

I  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  the  Arabic  version  of  Saadiah  Gaon  the 
land  of  Raamses,  in  Gen.  47:11,  and  the  city  of  Raamses,  in  Exod.  i:ii,  are 
rendered  as  "the  Well  of  the  Sun"  {Ain-Semes).  Now  the  Egyptian  monuments 
know  of  a  canal  called  "Water  of  Re  "  or  "Water  of  the  Sun."  The  name 
implies  that  it  may  have  run  close  by  the  city  of  Heliopolis.  This  canal  is  not 
known  before  the  eleventh  year  of  Ramses  III,  when  he  slew  the  Libyan  army 
on  its  banks.  The  same  canal  is  again  mentioned  by  the  same  king  in  Papyrus 
Harris  (pi.  10,  1.  8,  and  pi.  62a,  1.  2).  This  canal  can  be  nothing  else  than  the 
old  canal  of  Wady  Tumilat,  where  lately  the  Ishmalieh  Canal  was  dug.  It  started 
near  Cairo,  passed  Heliopolis,  Northern  Heliopolis,  and  Belbeis,  turned  westward 
at  Abbaseh,  passed  {Raamses  (Tel  el-Kebir),  Tel  el-Rotabieh,  Pithom  (Tel  el- 
Maskhutah),  and  flowed  into  Lake  Timsah  at  its  northern  end.  "The  Water 
of  the  Sun"  thus  flowed  through  all  the  land  where  in  P  we  find  traces  of  the 
Hebrew  settlements.  Furthermore  this  canal  supplied  water  for  all  of  the  East- 
ern Nome,  which  Ramses  II  reclaimed  for  cultivation,  and  in  which  he  built  his 
magnificent  cities,  mentioned  in  P,  cities  which  were  afterward  rebuilt  by  Ramses 
III,  ostensibly  because  they  had  been  destroyed  in  the  period  of  anarchy  which 
intervened  between  the  Nineteenth  and  Twentieth  dynasties. 


15°  THE  SERVITUDES  IN  EGYPT 

the  LXX  adds  the  name  of  On,  or  Hehopolis.  This,  of 
course,  cannot  be  the  old  city  of  Heliopolis,  the  history  of 
which  goes  back  to  the  time  of  the  Fifth  Dynasty.  It 
must  be  the  northern  Heliopolis,  modern  Tel  el-Jehudieh, 
the  Roman  Vicus  Judaeorum.'  At  the  time  these  cities 
were  being  built'  there  is  not  a  mention  in  the  monuments 
of  Goshen,  except  in  the  geographical  lists.  It  seems  to 
have  been  favored  neither  by  Ramses  II  nor  by  Ramses 
III.  Merneptah  seems  to  allude  to  it,  only  to  say  that  it 
had  been  abandoned  since  the  time  of  the  ancestors  and 
given  up  to  pasturage.  This  implies,  of  course,  that  once, 
in  the  past,  it  had  been  a  cultivated  land. 

The  period  of  the  servitude  in  Egypt,  then,  as  known 
to  the  author  of  the  P  document,  can  clearly  be  determined. 
The  people  settled  in  the  land  of  Raamses  and  helped 
build  the  cities  of  Raamses  and  Pithom.  Before  the 
reign  of  Ramses  II  no  land  of  Raamses  existed,  for  it 
was  he  who  reclaimed  the  land  from  the  swamps.  And 
it  was  Ramses  III  who  rebuilt  these  cities,  so  the  monu- 
ments clearly  say,  and  he  did  it  with  serf  labor  from  Asia ! 
And,  of  course,  if  they  settled  in  Ramses  IPs  reign,  he 
could  hardly  have  been  the  Pharaoh  of  the  oppression. 
This  Pharaoh  must  have  been  Ramses  III.  The  date  of 
the  servitude,  then,  according  to  the  evidence  derived  from 
P  itself,  seems  to  have  been  the  reign  of  Ramses  III,  i.  e., 
1181-1150  B.  c. 

1  We  know  from  Papyrus  Harris  (pi.  29,  II.  8-12)  that  Ramses  III  built  a 
temple  in  "the  House  of  Re  on  the  north  of  Heliopolis."  This  northern  Helio- 
polis is  not  known  on  the  monuments  before  the  reign  of  this  king,  although  it 
still  existed  in  the  time  of  Sheshonk  I  (Lepsius,  Denkmaler,  HI,  253a,  1.  12 
This  city  has  been  identified  with  the  modern  Tel  el-Jehudieh,  the  Roman 
Vicus  Judaeorum,  near  Belbeis.  This  Vicus  Judaeorum  is  not  to  be  confused 
with  another  Tel  el-Jehudieh,  which  in  Latin  is  called  Scenae  Veteranorum,  the 
place  where  Onias  built  his  temple. 

2  I.  e.,  the  Nineteenth  and  Twentieth  dynasties. 


\ 


I 

■a 


I 

i 


f 


S 


a 
i 

5 
I 

3 


il 


I 


e: 


e\ 


^       ^ 

5     ^ 

^ 


152  THE  SERVITUDES  IN  EGYPT 

But  what  of  the  oppression  in  the  JE  document  ?  In 
it  there  is  no  mention  of  the  building  of  these  great  store- 
cities  of  Raamses  and  Pithom.  Now  if,  as  we  have  seen 
from  our  dating  of  the  documents,  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that  JE  was  written  forty  years  after  the  departure 
from  Egypt,  or  less,  can  it  be  supposed  that  in  this  very 
short  time  all  memory  of  the  slaving  on  these  cities,  in 
which  the  people  had  suffered  so  grievously,  should  have 
utterly  perished  from  the  mind  of  the  JE  author  ?  It 
seems  fair  and  conservative  to  assume  that  the  people 
among  whom  the  JE  document  arose  had  had  no  connec- 
tion w^iatever  with  the  store-cities  of  Pithom  and  Raamses. 

Furthermore,  if  the  JE  exodus  came  from  the  land  of 
Goshen,  as  it  did,  it  must  have  passed  by  these  cities  on 
the  way  to  the  Red  Sea,  if  they  were  then  existent.  But, 
although  we  have  full  mention  of  the  cities  they  passed 
from  the  Red  Sea  to  Horeb,  there  is  no  mention  at  all  of 
any  cities  before  the  Red  Sea.  Does  it  not  seem  likely, 
then,  that  the  Exodus  told  of  in  JE  must  have  taken  place 
at  a  time  before  these  cities  were  built,  when  the  later 
"land  of  Raamses"  was  a  waste  marsh,  uninhabited? 
And  this  probable  conclusion  is  made  practically  certain 
by  the  remark,  in  Exod.  13:18,  "But  God  led  the  people 
about,  by  the  way  0}  the  wilderness,  unto  the  Red  Sea.'" 
We  are  forced,  then,  from  evidence  furnished  by  JE,  to 
date  the  servitude  and  exodus  of  which  it  tells  before  the 
time  of  Ramses  II,  who  reclaimed  the  wilderness  and 
built  the  cities. 

I  In  R.  V.  this  phrase  is  rendered  "by  the  Red  Sea."  The  Hebrew  may 
mean  either  "of  the  Red  Sea"  or  "to  the  Red  Sea."  It  cannot  be  "by  the  Red 
Sea."  The  LXX,  the  Targum  Onkelos,  the  Syriac  version,  and  the  Arabic 
version  all  unite  in  rendering  it  "to  the  Red  Sea."  The  inaccurate  Vulgate 
alone,  outside  of  the  English  versions,  renders  it  "by." 


CHAPTER  XIV 

Differences  Between  P  and  JED.— The  Going-out  from 

Egypt 

Even  if  we  felt  inclined  to  think  that  the  exodus  of  P 
were  not  different  from  that  of  JED  in  time,  we  would  find 
it  hard  to  believe  that  they  were  not  different  in  locality 
and  route. 

Again  we  place  the  two  accounts  of  the  route  out  of 
Egypt  in  parallel  columns: 


JE 


(They  were)  about  600,000  (or  600 
clans)  on  foot  that  were  men,  be- 
sides children,  38.  and  a  mixed 
multitude  went  up  also  with  them; 
and  flocks  and  herds,  even  very- 
much  cattle 

13:17:  And  it  came  to  pass, 
when  Pharaoh  had  let  the  people  go, 
that  God  led  them  not  by  the  way 
of  the|]land  of  the  Philistines,  al- 
though ^that  was  near;  for  God 
said,' ,Lest  peradventure  the  people 
repent  when  they  see  war,  and  they 
return  to  Egypt;  18.  but  God  led 
the  people  about  by  the  way  of  the 
wilderness  to  the  Red  Sea:  and 
the  children  of  Israel  went  up  armed 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt 


Exod.  12:37:  And  the  children 
of  Israel  journeyed  from  Raamses 
to  Succoth; 


20.  And  they  took  their  journey 
from  Succoth,  and  encamped  in 
Etham,  in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness. 


153 


154 


THE  GOING-OUT  FROM  EGYPT 


JE 

21.  And  Yahweh  went  before 
them,  by  day  in  a  pillar  of  cloud, 
to  lead  them  the  way;  and  by  night 
in  a  pillar  of  fire,  to  give  them  light; 
that  they  might  go  by  day  and  by 
night 


5.  And  it  was  told  the  king  of 
Egypt  that  the  people  were  fled; 
and  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  and  of  his 
servants  was  changed  toward  the 
people,  and  they  said.  What  is  this 
we  have  done,  that  we  have  let 
Israel  go  from  serving  us  ?  6.  And 
he  made  ready  his  chariot,  and  took 
his  people  with  him:  7.  and  he  took 
600  chosen   chariots,  .... 


14:1:  And  Yahweh  spake  unto 
Moses,  saying,  2.  Speak  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  that  they  turn 
back  and  encamp  before  Pi-Hahi- 
roth,  between  Migdol  and  the  Sea, 
before  Baal-Zephon;  over  against 
it  shall  ye  encamp  by  the  Sea.  3. 
And  Pharaoh  will  say  of  the  children 
of  Israel,  They  are  entangled  in  the 
land;  the  wilderness  has  shut  them 
in.  4.  And  I  will  make  strong 
Pharaoh's  heart,  and  he  shall  fol- 
low after;  and  I  will  get  me  honor 
upon  Pharaoh  and  upon  all  his 
host  and  the  Egyptians  shall  know 
that  I  am  Yahweh.  And  they 
did  so. 


8.  And  Yahweh  made  strong  the 
heart  of  Pharaoh,  king  of  Egypt, 
and  he  pursued  after  the  children 
of  Israel:  for  the  children  of  Israel 
went  out  with  an  high  hand.  9. 
And  the  Egyptians  pursued  after 
them,  all  the  horses  and  chariots 


THE  GOING-OUT  FROM  EGYPT 


155 


JE 


10.  And  when  Pharaoh  drew 
nigh  the  children  of  Israel  lifted 
up  their  eyes  and  behold,  the 
Egyptians  marched  after  them;  and 
they  were  sore  afraid:  and  the 
children  of  Israel  cried  out  unto 
Yahweh.  11.  And  they  said  unto 
Moses,  Because  there  were  no  graves 
in  Egypt,  hast  thou  taken  us  to  die 
in  the  wilderness  ?  Wherefore  hast 
thou  dealt  thus  with  us,  to  bring  us 
forth  out  of  Egypt  ?  ....  15.  And 
Yahweh  said  unto  Moses,  Where- 
fore criest  thou  unto  me  ? 


16.  (And)  lift  thou  up  thy  rod; 


19.  And  the  angel  of  God,  which 
went  before  the  camp  of  Israel, 
removed  and  went  behind  them; 
and  the  pillar  of  cloud  removed 
from  before  them,  and  stood  behind 
them;  20.  and  it  came  between 
the  camp  of  Egypt  and  the  camp 
of  Israel;  and  there  was  the  cloud 
and  the  darkness,  yet  gave  it  light 


of  Pharaoh,  and  his  horsemen  and 
his  army;  and  he  overtook  them, 
encamping  by  the  Sea,  beside  Pi- 
Hahiroth,  before  Baal-Zephon. 


Speak  vmto  the  children  of  Israel, 
that  they  go  forward. 

And  stretch  out  thy  hand  over  the 
Sea,  and  divide  it,  and  the  children 
of  Israel  shall  go  into  the  midst  of 
the  Sea  on  dry  ground.  17.  And 
I,  behold,  I  will  make  strong  the 
hearts  of  the  Egyptians,  and  they 
shall  go  in  after  them:  and  I  will 
get  me  honor  upon  Pharaoh,  and 
upon  all  his  host,  upon  his  chariots, 
and  upon  his  horsemen. 


156 


THE  GOING-OUT  FROM  EGYPT 


JE 


by  night:  and  the  one  came  not  near 
the  other,  all  the  night. 


24.  And  it  came  to  pass  in  the 
morning  watch,  that  Yahweh  looked 
forth  upon  the  host  of  the  Egyptians 
through  the  pillar  of  fire  and  of 
cloud,  and  discomfited  the  host  of 
the  Egyptians.  25.  And  he  bound 
their  chariot  wheels,  and  made  them 
to  drive  heavily:  so  that  the  Egyp- 
tians said,  Let  us  flee  from  the  face 
of  Israel;  for  Yahweh  fighteth  for 
them  against  the  Egyptians. 


And  the  Sea  returned  to  its  strength 
when  the  morning  appeared;  and 
the  Egyptians  fled  against  it; 
and  Yahweh  overthrew  the  Egyp- 
tians in  the  midst  of  the  Sea. 


21.  And  Moses  stretched  out  his 
hand  over  the  Sea,  and  Yahweh 
caused  the  Sea  to  go  back  by  a 
strong  east  wind  all  the  night,  and 
made  the  Sea  dry  land,  and  the 
waters  were  divided.  22.  And  the 
children  of  Israel  went  into  the 
midst  of  the  Sea  upon  the  dry 
ground:  and  the  waters  were  a  wall 
unto  them,  on  their  right  hand  and 
on  their  left.  23.  And  the  Egyp- 
tians pursued,  and  went  in  after 
them  into  the  midst  of  the  Sea,  all 
Pharaoh's  horses,  his  chariots,  and 
his  horsemen. 


26.  And  Yahweh  said  unto 
Moses,  Stretch  out  thy  hand  over 
the  Sea,  that  the  waters  may  come 
again  upon  the  Egyptians,  upon 
their  chariots  and  upon  their  horse- 
men. 27.  And  Moses  stretched 
forth  his  hand  over  the  Sea, 


THE  GOING-OUT  FROM  EGYPT 


157 


JE 


30.  Thus  Yahweh  saved  Israel 
that  day  out  of  the  hand  of  the 
Egyptians,  and  Israel  saw  the  Egyp- 
tians dead  upon  the  sea-shore.  31. 
And  Israel  saw  the  great  work  which 
Yahweh  did  upon  the  Egyptians, 
and  the  people  feared  Yahweh,  and 
they  believed  in  Yahweh  and  in  his 
servant   Moses 

15:22:  And  Moses  led  Israel 
onward  from  the  Red  Sea. 


28.  and  the  waters  returned,  and 
covered  the  chariots,  and  the  horse- 
men, even  all  the  host  of  Pharaoh 
that  went  in  after  them  into  the 
Sea;  there  remained  not  so  much 
as  one  of  them.  29.  But  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  walked  upon  dry 
land  in  the  midst  of  the  Sea;  and 
the  waters  were  a  wall  unto  them 
on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left. 


And  they  went  out  into  the  wilder- 
ness of  Shur;  and  they  went  three 
days  in  the  wilderness  and  found 
no  water. 


Another  account  of  the  P  journeying  at  this  time  is 
given  in  Num.  33:5-8^:  "And  the  children  of  Israel 
journeyed  from  Raamses  and  pitched  in  Succoth.  They 
journeyed  from  Succoth  and  pitched  in  Etham,  which  is 
in  the  edge  of  the  wilderness.  And  they  journeyed  from 
Etham,  and  turned  unto  Pi-Hahiroth,  which  is  before 
Baal-Zephon:  and  they  pitched  before  Migdol.  And 
they  journeyed  from  before  Hahiroth,  and  passed  through 
the  midst  of  the  Sea  into  the  wilderness:  and  they  went 
three  days'  journey  into  the  wilderness  of  Etham." 


158  THE  GOING-OUT  FROM  EGYPT 

The  P  Route 

In  the  P  account,  the  Israelites,  after  having  left 
Egyptian  territory,  came  to  "the  Sea."  In  no  place  in  P 
is  this  called  "the  Red  Sea."  When  we  attempt  to  identify 
it  with  "the  Red  Sea,"  we  are  reading  into  the  P  account 
something  not  contained  there.  Now,  from  both  the 
Hebrew  and  the  Greek  usages,  "the  Sea,"  without  further 
limitation,  can  mean  only  "the  Mediterranean  Sea." 
And  the  P  document  gives  evidence  that  this  is  the  meaning 
here. 

Wlien  the  Israelites  had  come  to  Succoth,  they  were 
told  to  turn  and  go  to  Pi-Hahiroth,  between  Baal-Zephon 
and  Migdol.  Now  Succoth  was  on  the  northern  end  of 
Lake  Timsah,  and  was  located  where  now  stands  the 
village  of  Ishmailieh.  From  Lake  Timsah  to  Lake 
Balah  there  was  a  line  of  Egyptian  fortresses,  called  in  the 
inscriptions  "the  Wall,"  and  in  Hebrew  "Shur"  (the  Wall 
of  Egypt).  At  the  northern  end  of  this  "wall"  was  a  great 
fortress  called  in  the  inscriptions  "Tharu,"  which  is  an 
exact  equivalent  of  "Shur,"  being  the  wall  or  fortress 
par  excellence.  The  word  in  Egyptian  for  fortress  is  khetem. 
This  is  rendered  in  Hebrew  etJiam\  When,  therefore, 
the  Bible  speaks  of  "the  wilderness  of  Etham,"  it  means 
"the  wilderness  of  the  fort."  This  wilderness  is,  then, 
the  same  as  that  called  "the  wilderness  of  Shur,"  as, 
indeed,  becomes  quite  plain  when  we  compare  with  Exod. 
15:22.  Now  we  know  from  a  number  of  other  references 
in  the  Bible ^  that  Shur  was  the  wilderness  to  the  east  of 
the  Egyptian  border,  between  Lake  Timsah  and  the  INIedi- 

'  Exod.  13:20;   Num.  33:6,  7,  8.     Egyptian  kh  corresponds  sometimes  to 
the  Hebrew  ale  ph.     Cf.  Brugsch,  Diet.  Geog.,  p.  647. 
^Gen.  16:7;   20:1;   25:18;   ISam.  15:7;   27:8. 


PI-HAHIROTH  159 

terranean.  If,  then,  the  children  of  Israel  passed  through 
this  wilderness,  when  they  turned  it  must  have  been  to 
the  north  from  Succoth,  i.  e.,  north  from  Lake  Timsah. 

From  the  inscriptions  of  Merneptah  we  know  that  the 
fortress  of  Succoth  was  very  strong.  It  is  then  easily  seen 
that  the  turn  to  the  north  was  made  to  avoid  this  powerful 
obstacle  in  the  way.  But  the  fortress  of  Tharu  or  Etham 
was  even  stronger,  and  so  they  had  to  continue  their  march 
yet  farther  to  the  north.  They  could  not  safely  get 
between  the  fortresses,  because  the  district  between  them 
was  very  thoroughly  patrolled.  This  we  know  because 
the  commanders  of  the  fortresses  were  required  to  send 
daily  reports  to  Pharaoh  of  all  who  went  into  or  out  of 
Egypt  at  and  around  their  posts.' 

Pi-Hahiroth 

Continuing  northward,  they  encamped  at  Pi-Hahiroth, 
between  Baal-Zephon  and  Migdol.  Fortunately  we  are 
quite  able  to  locate  these  three  places.  Pi-Hahiroth 
means  "mouth  of  the  hiroth,''  and  this  word  Hiroth, 
Greek  eiroth,  means  "lagoons."  As  Brugsch  has  shown, 
this  can  refer,  properly,  only  to  the  lagoons  of  the  Delta, 
and  in  our  account  can  mean  only  the  lagoons  of  Lake 
Menzaleh.  The  "mouth  of  the  lagoons"  would  then  be 
the  place  where  Lake  Menzaleh  connects  with  Lake  Balah. 
Between  these  two  lakes  there  is  now  dry  land,  except  for 
the  artificial  slip  which  starts  the  Suez  Canal.  But  for- 
merly they  were  connected  by  shallow  water,  as  geologists 
have  been  able  to  determine.  This  place  is  indeed 
between  Migdol,  which  lay  to  the  east,  and  Baal-Zephon, 
which  lay  to  the  west. 

I  Cf.  ARE,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  270-72. 


i6o  THE  GOING-OUT  FROM  EGYPT 

Migdol 

Migdol  means  in  Hebrew  "fortress,"  and  it  has  been 
supposed  by  some  that  the  Migdol  mentioned  here  may 
have  been  any  Egyptian  fortress.  But  this  is  not  the  case. 
There  was  a  fortress,  evidently  founded  by  Semites,  to 
the  east  of  Pi-Hahiroth.  When  it  was  taken  over  by  the 
Egyptians  they  retained  the  Hebrew  word  for  "fortress," 
by  which  it  was  called,  as  its  proper  name.  Thus  Migdol 
to  the  Egyptians  meant,  not  any  fortress,  but  this  particu- 
lar fortress.  Both  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah  mention  Migdol 
in  such  a  way  as  to  imply,  not  only  that  it  was  a  definite 
place,  but  also  that  it  was  the  first  Egyptian  city  to  be  met 
on  a  journey  into  that  country.'  In  the  classical  refer- 
ences, we  may  call  attention  especially  to  the  itinerary 
of  Antoninus,  which  says  that  Magdolum  was  twelve 
Roman  miles  south  of  Pelusium."  Bir-I\Iaqtal  is  its 
modern  name.  It  is  situated  twenty-three  miles  northeast 
of  IshmaHieh,  in  the  desert.  Some  scholars,  anxious  to 
locate  the  Exodus  in  the  south,  say  that  there  may  have 
been  a  Migdol  near  Suez.  In  this  regard  it  is  necessary 
to  remember  that  there  never  has  been  the  slightest  scrap 
of  evidence  advanced  in  support  of  this  supposition.  It 
is  an  assumption,  pure  and  simple.  From  all  the  excava- 
tions, in  the  Delta  and  in  other  places  in  Egypt,  and  from 
all  the  inscriptions  so  far  found,  not  one  statement,  not 
one  intimation  has  been  discovered  of  any  Migdol  near 
Suez,  or  anywhere  else,  for  that  matter,  except  south  of 
Pelusium  and  east  of  Pi-Hahiroth.  And  this  location 
answers  every  requirement  both  of  the  Bible  and  of  the 
inscriptions. 

'Ezek.  29:10;   30:6;   Jer.  44:1;   46:14. 

^'"A  Serapio  Pelusio  mpm  LX  Thaubasio  VIII  Sile  XXVIII  Magdolo 
XII  Pelusio  XII." 


l62  THE  GOING-OUT  FROM  EGYPT 

Baal-Zephon 

The  name  Baal-Zephon  has  never  been  discovered, 
exactly  as  it  stands,  in  the  Egyptian  inscriptions.  The 
name  means  "Lord  of  the  Northland."  But  we  know 
that  Ramses  III  built  a  city  in  the  northeastern  Delta, 
which  he  called  after  his  name  and  dedicated  to  "Amon 
of  the  Northland.'"  This  name  Zephon  is  changed  by 
Ezekiel  and  Jeremiiah  to  Tahpanhes.^  This  is  identical 
with  the  name  the  Greeks  gave  to  the  city  of  "Anion  of  the 
Northland,"  i.  e.,  Daphnai,  the  modern  Tel  el-Defenneh. 
This  city  Petrie  has  excavated.^  We  know  its  exact 
location,  and  that  it  was  founded  by  Ramses  III.  It  is 
a  few  miles  to  the  west  of  where  the  Suez  Canal  begins, 
i.  e.,  a  few  miles  to  the  west  of  where  we  have  located 
Pi-Hahiroth. 

An  examination  of  the  map  will  show  that  the  only 
place  where  the  Hebrews  could  hope  to  penetrate  the 
natural  and  artificial  fortifications  on  the  border  of  Eg}^t 
and  so  pass  out  into  the  desert  was  across  the  shallow  waters 
between  Lake  Balah  and  Lake  Menzaleh.  And  it  is  not 
at  all  unlikely  that  a  strong  eastern  wind-*  could  so  have 
driven  back  the  waters  from  this  narrow  strip  that  the 
place  would  have  become  passable.  The  two  lakes, 
Balah  and  Menzaleh,  would  then  have  been  the  two 
metaphorical  "walls  of  water  on  either  side,"  of  the  bib- 
lical   account.     Furthermore    Lake    Menzaleh    is   really 

■  Papyrus  Harris,  PI.  lo,  1.  12.     Cf.  PL  8,  11.  2-8. 

2  Jer.  2:16;  43:7,  8,  9;  44:1;  46:14;  Ezek.  30:18.  Hebrew  tsade  often 
becomes  /  or  d  in  Greek.  Cf.  Hebrew  Zoan  and  Greek  Tannis.  Cf.  again 
Typhon  the  God  of  Avaris,  the  Hyksos  stronghold. 

3  Cf.  Tanis  II. 

4  On  the  other  hand,  an  eastern  wind  on  the  Red  Sea  would  rather  increase 
than  diminish  the  water  at  its  northeastern  end.  An  eastern  wind  on  Menzaleh 
would  have  just  the  effect  desired. 


1 64  THE  GOING-OUT  FROM  EGYPT 

not  a  lake  at  all,  but  a  bay,  an  arm  of  the  Mediterranean, 
and  it  therefore  is  quite  properly  called  "the  Sea." 
Finally  that  this  was  the  route  of  the  P  account  is  made  the 
more  plain  by  the  statement  that  after  leaving  "the  Sea" 
they  came  into  the  wilderness  of  Shur,  which  is,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  be  found  in  this  locality  and  nowhere  else. 

The  JED  Route 

The  JED  account,  on  the  other  hand,  places  the  going- 
out  quite  definitely  at  the  Red  Sea.  And  furthermore, 
the  JED  account  nowhere  states  that  there  was  any  pas- 
sage through  the  Sea.  The  easiest  explanation  of  the 
JED  account,  which  may  again  be  referred  to  in  the 
parallel  columns,  is  this.  The  Egyptians,  pursuing  the 
Hebrews,  followed  them  out  over  the  sand  and  mud  fiats 
uncovered  by  the  ebbing  tide,  where  the  sand  was  moist 
and  the  chariots  drove  heavily,  so  that  they  could  make 
little  progress.  There  nightfall  overtook  them.  Toward 
morning  the  tide  rapidly  returned,  and,  although  they 
fled,  overwhelmed  them  in  the  sea.  And  the  Hebrews 
saw  their  bodies  washed  up  on  the  shore.  There  is  no 
supernatural   phenomenon   necessarily  implied. 

This  Red  Sea  of  JED  cannot  be  placed  in  the  north, 
any  more  than  "the  Sea"  of  P  can  be  placed  in  the  south. 
It  is  of  course  a  mistake  to  place  the  Red  Sea  so  far  to 
the  south  as  Suez,  for  Heroo-polis  is  mentioned  as  being 
on  its  shores,  and  we  know  that  this  city  was  north  of 
what  we  now  know  as  the  Bitter  Lakes.  But  though  it 
extended  this  far  north,  it  can  never  be  confounded  with 
the  Great  Sea  or  with  Lake  Tslenzaleh. 

Only  on  the  hypothesis  of  two  exodi,  one  to  the  south, 
the  other  to  the  north,  do  the  two  accounts  of  the  route 
out  of  Egypt  become  explainable. 


^  h 


'^ 


|1h 


CHAPTER  XV 

Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — The  Routes  of  the 

Exodus 

From  the  JED  documents  we  must  route  the  journey 
of  the  Israelites  as  follows:    (i)  Red  Sea;    (2)  Marah 
(3)    Elim;     (4)    Rephidim;     (5)    Horeb;     (6)    Taberah 
(7)  Kibroth  Hattavah;  (8)  Hazeroth;  (9)  Kadesh-barnea 
(10)    Ezion    Gaber;     (11)     Beeroth-bene-jaakan ;     (12) 
Moserah;    (13)  Gudgodah;    (14)  Jothbatha;    (15)  Zared 
(16)  Arnon;    (17)  Beer;    (18)  Mattanah;    (19)  Nahaliel 
(20)  Bamoth;    (21)  Pisgah;    (22)  Heshbon;    (23)  Jaazer 
(24)  Kedemoth;    (25)   Jahaz;     (26)   Edrei;     (27)   Beth- 
Peor;  (28)  Shittmi  in  Moab. 

From  the  P  document  we  derive  the  following  route: 
(i)  Raamses;  (2)  Succoth;  (3)  edge  of  Etham;  (4)  Pi- 
Hahiroth;  (5)  the  Sea;  (6)  the  Wilderness  of  Shur;  (7) 
Elim;  (8)  the  Red  Sea; ^  (9)  the  Wilderness  of  Sin;  (10) 
the  Wilderness  of  Sinai;  (11)  Sinai;  (12)  the  Wilderness 
of  Paran;  (13)  the  Wilderness  of  Zin;  (14)  Meribah; 
(15)  Kadesh-barnea;  (16)  Hor;  (17)  Oboth;  (18)  Ijje- 
Abarim;  (19)  Zared;  (20)  Plains  of  Moab;  (21)  Mount 
Nebo. 

In  these  two  routes  there  are  only  three  places  after 
Egypt  was  left  behind  that  are  the  same :  Kadesh-barnea, 
Elim,  and  Zared. 

Of  these  Kadesh-barnea  is  the  gateway  for  entrance 
into  Canaan  from  the  south,  and  any  large  number  of 
people  that  wished  to  enter  Canaan  between  the  Philistine 

I  Here  Gulf  of  Aqabah. 

166 


THE  ROUTES  OF  THE  EXODUS  167 

country  and  Mount  Seir  would  find  this  spot  the  only 
convenient  place  to  penetrate. 

The  second  name,  Elim,  is  one  that  occurs  as  the  desig- 
nation of  several  places  in  Palestine.  The  word  is  a 
plural  form,  and  means  "trees,"  especially  oaks  or  tere- 
binths. '  In  the  itinerary  according  to  JE, '  Elim  is  placed 
between  Marah  and  Rephidim.  It  had  twelve  wells  of 
water,  and  three  score  and  ten  palms.  These  trees  were 
undoubtedly  regarded  as  sacred,  and  had  given  their 
name  to  the  place.  Probably  it  is  to  be  identified  with  the 
modern  Wady  Gharandel,  still  known  for  its  good  water 
and  its  palm  trees.  The  Elim  of  P,'  on  the  other  hand, 
can  hardly  be  regarded  as  the  same  place.  There  was  a 
place  called  by  the  feminine  form,  Elath,  on  the  Eieanitic 
Gulf,  which  seems  to  fit  well  into  the  route  as  given  in 
this  document. 4 

Zared,  the  third  point  of  agreement,  is  a  brook  or  valley 
running  westward  into  the  Dead  Sea  through  the  land  of 
Edom.  Any  army  entering  the  east-Jordanic  land  from 
the  south  would  have  to  cross  this  brook.  It  by  no  means 
follows  that  in  the  two  accounts  the  crossings  were  at 
the  same  place.  In  other  words,  Zared  is  really  not  a 
point   of   agreement   at   all.      In   fact,  from   the   routes 

I  Instead  of  the  masculine  Elim  we  often  have  the  feminine  Elath.  The 
forms  are  used  interchangeably. 

2Exod.  15:27.  sExod.  16:1. 

4  Cf .  Deut.  2:8,11  Kings  16:6,  and  II  Chron.  26 : 2.  In  all  three  places  the 
Greek  reads  Ailam  or  Ailon,  instead  of  Elath.  In  the  two  last  instances  we  have 
a  Greek  form  agreeing  with  the  Hebrew  plural  Elim.  In  the  first  is  used  the 
Arabic  masculine  plural  Ailan.  The  Eieanitic  gulf  has  received  its  name  from 
this  Arabic  form.  The  passages  cited  show  that  the  name  could  be  given  either 
as  a  masculine  or  as  a  feminine.  PUny  locates  the  place  ten  miles  east  of  Petra 
and  150  miles  southeast  of  Gaza  (Pliny,  V,  5,  11,  12).  It  is  identical  with 
£/-ParaM  in  Gen.  14:6.  Jerome  and  Eusebius  know  it  by  the  name  ot  Ailam 
(the  biblical  Elim). 


1 68         THE  ROUTES  OF  THE  EXODUS 

described,  it  seems  very  unlikely  that  the  two  armies  did 
cross  the  brook  at  the  same  spot,  for  in  P  the  route  is  far 
to  the  west  of  that  in  JED. 

The  other  names  of  stopping-places  are  entirely  differ- 
ent. It  is  a  hopeless  task  to  seek  to  identify  them.  We  are 
not  warranted  in  assuming  that  they  describe  the  same 
route.  Such  an  assumption  cannot  be  allowed  at  all, 
for  some  of  the  principal  names  can  be  identified  today, 
and  the  routes  lie  far  apart. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — The  Length  of  the 
Wandering 

In  the  P  account  the  available  data  for  time  consumed 
in  wandering  through  the  wilderness  are  as  follows: 

(i)  The  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel  left  Raam- 
ses  on  the  day  after  the  Passover,  i.  e.,  on  the  fifteenth  day 
of  the  first  month  of  the  first  year.  The  next  day  they 
marched  from  Succoth  to  Etham,  and  the  next  from 
Etham  to  Pi-Hahiroth. '  (2)  They  then  spent  three  days 
in  the  wilderness  of  Shur  without  finding  water.  ^  (3) 
They  arrived  in  the  Wilderness  of  Sin  on  the  fifteenth  day 
of  the  second  month.  ^  (4)  They  reached  the  wilderness 
of  Sinai  in  the  third  month.  "♦  The  day  has  fallen  out  of 
the  text,  but  tradition  has  it  that  it  was  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost,  fifty  days  after  the  Passover,  the  fifth  day  of  the 
third  month.  (5)  This  is  made  the  more  probable  by  the 
next  date.  Moses  was  called  up  into  the  mountain  on 
the  seventh  day,  ^  which  would  be  the  last  day  of  the  Pente- 
costal festival.  (6)  Moses  spent  forty  days  on  the  mount.  ^ 
This  brings  us  to  the  twenty-second  day  of  the  fourth 
month.  (7)  The  ordinance  regarding  the  Passover  was 
promulgated  in  the  first  month  of  the  second  year.^  (8) 
The  people  were  mustered  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  on 

I  Exod.  12:37;  14:  2. 

a  Exod.  15:22.  According  to  Num.  ;^^ :  8  this  wilderness  is  called  the  Wilder- 
ness of  Etham. 

3  Exod.  i6: 1.  4  Exod.  19:1. 

5  Exod.  24: 16.     This  would  then  be  the  twelfth  day  of  the  third  month. 

6  Exod.  24:18;   32:15,  16.  7  Num.  9:1. 

169 


170  THE  LENGTH  OF  THE  WANDERING 

the  first  day  of  the  second  month  of  the  second  year.' 
The  tabernacle  had  been  made  and  was  now  being  put  up. 
(9)  The  journey  from  Sinai  to  the  wUderness  of  Paran 
began  on  the  twentieth  day  of  the  second  month  of  the 
second  year.^  (10)  The  spies  were  sent  from  the  Wilder- 
ness of  Paran  to  spy  out  the  land  as  far  as  the  Pass  of 
Hamath.^  After  their  return  the  congregation  journeyed 
and  arrived  in  the  wilderness  of  Zin  in  the  first  month. "* 
The  year  has  here  fallen  out,  but  the  event  is  so  closely 
connected  with  what  has  just  gone  before  that  the  inference 
cannot  but  be  that  we  now  start  the  third  year  of  the  wand- 
dering.  After  this  time  no  more  dates  are  given  in  P, 
except  that  the  people  mourned  thirty  days  for  Aaron  in 
Mount  Hor,  ^  and  that  they  wept  a  similar  period  for  Moses 
in  the  plains  of  Moab.^  As  no  new  year  is  given  in  P,  and 
as  we  remember  the  carefulness  of  the  author  in  record- 
ing dates,  we  must  assume  that  the  arrival  in  the  plains  of 
Moab  took  place  in  the  same  year,  i.  e.,  the  third.  There 
is  absolutely  nothing  in  P  to  indicate  that  the  journey 
from  Egypt  to  Canaan  took  more  than  three  years.  But 
even  though  some  may  be  inclined  to  doubt  the  certainty  of 
this  conclusion,  there  is  no  room  for  doubt  in  regard  to 
the  P  chronology  of  the  Exodus  up  to  the  arrival  in  the 
wilderness  of  Zin. 

Now,  what  is  true  of  the  chronology  of  the  JED 
account  ? 

(i)  The  people  left  Egypt  on  the  fourteenth(?)  day  of  the 
month  Abib.^  (2)  During  the  night  of  that  same  day  they 
passed  the  Red  Sea.     (3)  Outside  of  Egypt  the  first  stop- 

J  Num.  1:1.  4  Num.  20:1.  7  Exod.  13:4. 

'  Num.  10:11.  5  Num.  20:29. 

3  Num.   13:21.  6  Deut.  34:8. 


THE  LENGTH  OF  THE  WANDERING  171 

ping-place  was  Marah,  The  second  was  Elim.^  The 
third  was  Rephidim.^  They  were  now  at  the  foot  of 
Mount  Horeb.  We  know  this  because  while  they  were 
at  Rephidim  Moses  was  ordered  to  smite  the  rock  of  Horeb 
in  order  to  get  water  for  the  people.^  The  journey  up 
to  this  point  would  seem  to  have  occupied  three  days.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  when  Yahweh  appeared  to  Moses 
for  the  first  time,  the  theophany  took  place  at  this  same 
Mount  Horeb.'*  There  God  commanded  him,  saying, 
"When  thou  hast  brought  forth  the  people  out  of  Egypt, 
ye  shall  serve  God  upon  this  mountain."^  The  first  object- 
ive point  of  the  march,  then,  would  be  this  mountain,  in  obe- 
dience to  this  command.  And,  further,  when  God  com- 
manded Moses  to  bring  the  people  out,  he  said  to  him, "And 
thou  shalt  go,  thou  and  the  elders  of  Israel,  unto  the  king  of 
Egypt,  and  ye  shall  say  unto  him,  Yahweh,  the  God  of  the 
Hebrews,  has  met  with  us:  and  now  let  us  go,  we  pray 
thee,  three  days^  journey  into  the  wilderness,  that  we  may 
sacrifice  unto  Yahweh  our  God.'"^  And  again  we  read 
that  when  Moses  did  appear  before  Pharaoh  that  was  the 
request  he  made.^  It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  distance 
from  Egypt  to  the  appointed  place  of  sacrifice,  Horeb, 
was  three  days'  journey;  and  we  have  found  that  Rephi- 
dim, at  the  foot  of  Horeb,  was  the  third  station  on  the  way. 
The  stations  so  far,  then,  would  seem  each  to  have  marked 
a  day's  journey.  (5)  When  the  people  had  left  Rephidim, 
they  were  attacked  by  the  Amalekites.  After  the  battle 
Jethro  visited  Moses  and  offered  a  holocaust  and  a  sacrifice 
at  which  Aaron  and  all  the  elders  of  Israel  came  to  eat 

lExod.  15:27.  4Exod.3:i.  7Exod.8:27. 

2  Exod.   17:1.  s  Exod.  3:12. 

3  Exod.   17:6.  6  Exod  3:18 


172  THE  LENGTH  OF  THE  WANDERING 

bread  with  him.  The  next  day  Moses  spent  judging  the 
people.  It  is  of  course  possible  that  these  events  took 
more  than  three  days,  but  there  is  no  indication  to  that 
effect  in  the  context.  The  people  were  now  encamped 
before  the  Mount  of  Yahweh,  i.  e.,  Horeb/  and  had  been 
on  the  way  six  days  in  all.  (6)  The  third  day  Yahweh 
spoke  to  the  people.  "*  (7)  Then  Moses  and  the  twelve 
chosen  men  performed  the  sacrifice  in  Horeb.^  Next 
day  Moses,  Aaron,  Nadab,  Abihu,  and  the  elders, 
went  up  into  the  mountain.  ^  INIoses  stayed  there  forty 
days.^  He  then  returned  from  the  mount,  put  do\Mi  the 
rebellion,  and  consecrated  the  Levites.^  He  then  returned 
to  the  mount  and  stayed  another  forty  days.^  (8)  The 
people  then  marched  three  days  from  the  Mount  of  Yah- 
weh.^ The  stations  are  mentioned  as  Taberah,  Kibroth- 
Hattavah,  and  Hazeroth.  This  goes  to  substantiate 
our  contention  that  in  this  narrative  a  single  station  means 
normally  a  single  day's  journey.  (9)  On  account  of 
Miriam's  leprosy  the  people  stayed  for  seven  days  at 
Hazeroth,^  (10)  It  was  eleven  days' journey  from  Horeb 
to  Kadesh-barnea. '°  As  Hazeroth  most  probably  belonged 
to  the  Horeb  mountain-chain,  this  period  is  probably 
the  time  consumed  from  Hazeroth  to  Kadesh.  Num. 
33: 18-30  seems  to  indicate  that  there  were  twelve  stations 
from  Hazeroth  to  Moseroth,  but  as  we  are  not  absolutely 
certain  in  identifying  the  names  of  the  stations  in  that 
list,  and  as  it  was  made  up  from  the  combined  E  and  P 

1  Exod.  19:2.  '^  Exod.  32:29,  30. 

2  Exod.  19:16.  7  Exod.  34:28. 

3  Exod.  24:4-8.  8  Num.    10:33. 

4  Exod.  24:9-11.  9  Num.  12:3-15. 
s  Exod.  24:12-150;  Deut.  9:9-11.                      i°Deut.  1:2. 


THE  LENGTH  OF  THE  WANDERING       173 

lists  at  a  late  time,  it  is  of  minor  value,  (ii)  On  arriving 
at  Kadesh  the  twelve  spies  were  sent  to  Escol.  They 
returned  after  forty  days. '  (i  2)  When  the  spies  made  their 
report  the  rebellion  of  Kadesh  took  place,  and  in  punish- 
ment for  it  the  people  were  condemned  to  a  forty-years' 
wandering  in  the  wilderness.  Up  to  this  time  the  period 
which  had  elapsed  was  about  183-190  days,  i.  e.,  about 
half  a  year. 

The  forty-years'  wandering  belongs  to  this  JED  story. 
It  occurs  in  E  sections;  in  Num.  14:33-34;  32:13;' 
33:38,^  and  Josh.  5:6.  D  knows  of  nothing  else  than  a 
forty-years'  wandering.  "*  Of  the  prophets,  only  Amos 
refers  to  it,^  and  he  was  the  prophet  of  the  Northern  King- 
dom, whose  peculiar  property,  after  the  division  of  the 
kingdom,  the  E  code  was.  In  Ps.  95 :  10  there  is  also  a 
reference  to  it.  And  these  are  all  the  references  to  such 
a  wandering  that  there  are  in  the  Old  Testament.  Knowl- 
edge of  such  an  event  is  confined  to  the  JED  account. 
The  P  account  and  its  followers  in  their  writings  imply 
a  three-years'  wandering,  and  no  more. 

It  is  as  impossible  to  reconcile  the  two  chronologies 
of  the  wandering  as  it  is  to  identify  the  two  geographies. 

1  Num.   13:25;    14:34- 

2  A  section  redacted  by  P. 

3  An  E  statement  recorded  by  a  P  editor. 
4Deut.  1:3;    2:7;    8:2,  4;    29:5. 

5  Amos  2:10;   5:25. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — Horeb  and  Sinai 

Are  Horeb  and  Sinai  merely  different  names  for  the 
same  place  ? 

We  have  already  seen  that  in  the  JED  account  it  took 
the  people  three  days  to  march  from  Egypt  to  Horeb, 
where  the  Decalogue,  the  giving  of  the  E  code,  and  the 
institution  of  the  Levitical  priesthood  all  took  place.  We 
have  also  seen  that  in  the  P  account  it  took  at  least  forty- 
five  days  for  the  people  to  journey  from  Egypt  to  Sinai, 
where  the  Testimonies  were  given,  the  P  code  delivered, 
and  the  Aaronic  priesthood  instituted. 

Horeb 

Mount  Horeb  must  then  be  sought  in  the  immediate 
neighborhood  of  the  Red  Sea.  Tradition  has  pointed 
out  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  and  especially  Mount  Serbal, 
as  the  place  where  the  Decalogue  was  given  and  the  theo- 
phany  seen,  a  mount  still  called  by  the  Arabs  Et-Tur, 
"the  Mount,"  the  name  being  an  exact  equivalent  for  the 
Hebrew  zur,  used  for  Mount  Horeb  in  the  JED  account. 
In  the  fifth  century  a.  d.  the  Christian  monks  were  driven 
from  their  monastery  on  Mount  Serbal,  and  received 
a  new  monastic  home  from  Justinian  in  Gebel  INIusa,  a 
peak  to  the  south  of  Serbal.  The  monks  now  stationed 
on  Gebel  Musa  claim  that  this  is  the  mount  where  the 
Decalogue  was  given ;  but  their  contention  has  no  support 
from  the  old  tradition.  Mount  Serbal  has  been  singled 
out  as  the  true  mount  by  Jewish,  Mohammedan,  and 

174 


HOREB  175 

Christian  tradition.  It  was  a  sacred  mountain  far  back 
in  ante-Christian  times.  Pilgrimages  were  made  to  it  by 
the  people  living  nearby,  as  the  Nabathean  inscriptions 
from  the  mount  itself  plainly  testify.  At  the  north  end  of 
it,  lying  at  its  foot,  stretches  the  beautiful  valley  or  Wady 
Firan,  which  would  be  the  biblical  Rephidim.  A  short 
distance  to  the  north  of  this  wady  is  Serbut  el-Khadem, 
where  Petrie  in  1906  excavated  and  described'  the  great 
temple  built  by  Queen  Hatshepsut,  which,  perhaps, 
became  the  model  for  the  Jewish  temple  idea.  It  is  the 
only  temple  yet  excavated  which  is  like  the  Hebrew  tem- 
ples. There  there  were  altars  for  holocausts  and  sacrifices, 
otherwise  scarcely  known  to  Egyptian  temples,  but  well 
known  to  Hebrew  rituals.  There  Petrie  discovered  a 
number  of  cow^-images,  from  seeing  which  the  people  may 
have  been  inspired  with  their  desire  for  the  golden  calf. 
The  location  of  Mount  Serbal  fits  perfectly  the  distance 
which  could  have  been  traversed  in  three  days  from  Egypt. 
The  biblical  Marah,  with  its  bitter  waters,  would  be  the 
present  Ayn  INIusa,  with  its  sweet  and  bitter  springs. 
It  lies  a  little  to  the  south  of  the  present  Suez.  If  the 
E  exodus  took  place  to  the  south  of  Lake  Timsah,  it  would 
then  be  just  a  day's  journey  from  the  passage  of  the  Red 
Sea  to  this  Ayn  Musa.  Another  day  would  bring  the 
army  to  Wady  Gharandel,  which  w^e  feel  inclined  to 
identify  with  Elim,  still  noted  for  its  trees  and  good 
water.  A  short  journey  of  half  a  day  would  bring  them 
from  there  to  Wady  Firan,  or  Rephidim,  on  the  north 
side  of  Mount  Serbal.  We  shall  not  go  far  wrong  if 
we  identify  Horeb  with  Mount  Serbal,  even  as  tradition 
urges  us. 

•  Petrie,  Sinai. 


176  HOREB  AND  SINAI 

Sinai 

As  for  Sinai,  we  have  already  noticed  that  it  took 
forty-five,  or  perhaps  fifty  days  for  the  army  to  reach  it 
from  Raamses.  Although  we  may  admit  that  some  time 
was  spent  resting  at  Elim  or  Elath,  nevertheless  it  is  plain 
that  we  deal  here  with  a  mountain  at  a  considerable  dis- 
tance from  Eg}qDt,  and  not,  as  was  Horeb,  at  a  distance 
of  three  days  only. 

Two  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  give  clues  as  to 
the  location  of  Sinai.  In  Deut.  33:2  we  read,  "Yahweh 
came  from  Sinai,  and  rose  from  Seir  unto  them;  he  shined 
forth  from  Mount  Paran,  and  they  came  from  the  myriads 
of  Kadesh:  at  his  right  hand  was  a  fire,  a  law  unto  them." 
Again  we  read,  in  Judg.  5:4,  5,  "Yahweh,  when  thou 
wentest  forth  out  of  Seir,  when  thou  marchedst  out  of  the 
field  of  Edom,  the  earth  trembled,  the  heavens  also 
dropped,  yea,  the  clouds  dropped  water.  The  mountain 
quaked  at  the  presence  of  Yahweh,  even  yon  Sinai,  at 
the  presence  of  Yahweh,  the  God  of  Israel."  In  both 
passages  Mount  Seir  and  Mount  Sinai  are  equalized. 
The  parallelism  peculiar  to  Hebrew  verse  presupposes 
that  in  these  passages  Seir  and  Sinai  are  to  be  regarded 
as  one.  Sinai  is  brought  into  connection  with  the  fields 
of  Edom.  Ancient  tradition  has  here  located  Sinai. 
And  while  this  tradition  has  pointed  out  Mount  Seir 
as  Sinai,  it  has  never  identified  it  with  Horeb.  When 
all  these  facts  are  taken  into  consideration,  the  location 
of  Sinai  as  a  peak  of  Mount  Seir  is  not  only  possible  but 
probable. ' 

'  The  wilderness  of  Sin  and  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  are  the  oases  of  the 
Arabah,  between  the  Seir  ranges,  from  Ezion-Gaber  to  Petra.  The  wilderness 
of  Zin  is  the  oasis  of  Kadesh,  and  the  wilderness  of  Paran  is  the  great  plateau 


SINAI  177 

It  seems  conclusive,  then,  that  Horeb  and  Sinai 
were  two  distinct  and  separated  places. 

south  of  Kadesh,  west  of  Seir,  north  of  Tih  (northern  mountain  range  of  the 
Sinaitic  peninsula),  and  east  of  the  Wilderness  of  Shur. 

Midian  was  the  land  on  the  western  or  southwestern  slopes  of  Mount  Seir. 
Madian  (Greek  Madiam)  was  the  land  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Gulf  of 
Aqabah.     The  Amalekites  Uved  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran,  west  of  Midian. 

While  reading  page-proof,  the  author  received  the  last  instalment  of  R. 
Weill's  article,  "Le  sejour  des  IsraeHtes  au  desert  et  le  Sinai  dans  la  relation 
primitive,  revolution  du  texte  biblique  et  la  tradition  christiano-moderne" 
{Revue  des  Etudes  Jiiives,  July,  1909,  pp.  23-60).  The  author  cannot  but  admire 
M.  Weill's  solid  arguments  for  locating  Sinai  in  the  land  of  Edom.  His  criti- 
cism of  some  wild-cat  theories  of  radical  critics  is  also  to  the  point  and  well 
taken.  But  when  Mr.  Weill  proceeds  to  identify  Horeb  and  Sinai,  locating  it  in 
Edom,  by  totally  discounting  the  value  of  the  whole  E  Document  on  this  point, 
we  have  in  it  only  a  new  reminder  of  the  narrow  limitations  within  which  modern 
biblical  science  labors.  When  facts  do  not  fit  theories,  throw  the  facts  away. 
Now,  if  anything  is  certain  it  is  the  fact,  that  in  the  JE  Document,  Horeb  or 
"Mount  of  God"  was  situated  at  the  distance  of  three  days'  journey  from 
Goshen.  But  it  is  absolutely  impossible  for  any  army  of  6,000  (or  600,000)  men 
encumbered  by  women,  children,  and  cattle,  to  march  from  Goshen  in  Egypt  to 
Mount  Seir  in  Edom  in  three  days. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

Differences  Between  P  and  JED.— The  Sets  of  Tables 
and  the  Arks 

The  Two  Sets  of  Tables 

At  Horeb  God  gave  Moses  two  Tables  of  Covenant.' 
These  were  broken  by  Moses,  when  he  saw  that  the  people 
were  worshiping  the  golden  calf.^  But  he  was  ordered 
to  prepare  new  tables,^  and  on  these  God  wrote  the  words 
of  the  covenant,  "the  Ten  Words."'*  Deuteronomy 
knows  of  no  other  tables  save  these  of  the  Covenant.^ 
When  Solomon  built  his  temple,  he  placed  in  it  these 
same  Tables  of  the  Covenant.  "There  was  nothing  in 
the  ark,  save  the  two  tables  of  stone  which  Moses  put 
there  at  Horeb,  where  Yahweh  made  a  covenant  with  the 
children  of  Israel,  when  they  came  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt. "^  The  priestly  writer  of  Chronicles  records  the 
same  fact." 

At  Sinai,  on  the  other  hand,  in  the  P  account,  IMoses 
received  two  Tables  of  Testimony.  "And  Moses  turned, 
and  went  down  from  the  mountain  with  the  two  tables 
of  the  testimony  in  his  hand;  tables  that  were  written 
on  both  their  sides ;  on  the  one  side  and  on  the  other  were 
they  written."^  Are  these  Tables  of  Testimony  identical 
with  the  Tables  of  Covenant  ?  We  know  that  the  latter 
contained  the  Decalogue.     But  there  is  no  hint  anywhere 

>  Exod.  24:12.  sExod.  34:1. 

^Exod.  32:19.  4  Exod.  34:28. 

sDeut.  4:13;  5:22;  9:9,10,11,15,17;   10:1-5. 
6  I  Kings  8:9.  7  II  Chron.  5:10.  ^^  Exod.  32:15. 

178 


THE  TWO  SETS  OF  TABLES  179 

in  P  of  the  promulgation  of  any  decalogue.  Further,  it  is 
explicitly  stated  that  the  Tables  of  Testimony  were  written 
on  both  sides,  which  would  presuppose  quite  an  extended 
document.  It  would  hardly  be  necessary  to  use  so  much 
space  for  the  short  Ten  Words.  Furthermore,  the  Tables 
of  Testimony  must,  of  course,  have  contained  "testi- 
monies." The  word  is  a  technical  one,  denoting  the 
theophany  of  Yahweh  at  a  given  place.  The  Tables  of 
Testimony  would  therefore  deal  with  Yahweh's  theo- 
phany, or,  more  particularly,  with  the  place  where  he 
would  appear.  Now  immediately  after  the  return  of 
Moses  from  the  mount  with  these  tables,'  we  have  a 
minute  description  of  the  pattern  of  the  tabernacle  which 
Moses  built,  and  in  which  Yahweh  dwelt.''  Moreover 
we  find  that  the  instructions  concerning  the  building  of 
the  tabernacle  had  been  given  to  Moses  while  on  the 
mount.  ^  This  section  of  instructions  ends  with  these 
remarkable  words,  "And  he  gave  unto  Moses,  when  he 
had  made  an  end  of  communing  with  him  on  Mount 
Sinai,  the  two  tables  of  the  testimony,  tables  of  stone, 
written  with  the  finger  of  God."^  The  inference  is  that 
God's  communication  to  Moses  on  the  mount  was  recorded 
in  these  tables,  the  "testimonies"  of  which  were  the  ordi- 
nances on  the  tabernacle  and  the  priesthood.  From  a 
consideration  of  the  P  code  itself  (the  only  way  we  have 
a  right  to  consider  the  code  historically)  this  is  the  only 
inference  which  can  be  drawn. 

The  tables  delivered  at  Sinai,  then,  and  those  given  at 
Horeb  appear  to  have  been  two  different  things. 

I  Exod.  34:29. 

»  Exod.  35:1—40:38. 

3  Exod.  25:1 — 31:18. 

4  Exod.  31:18. 


i8o  THE  SETS  OF  TABLES  AND  THE  ARKS 

The  Two  Arks 

In  Deut.  io:i-8  Moses  relates  that  he  was  directed 
at  Horeb  to  make  not  only  the  two  tables  of  stone,  but 
also  an  ark.  He  made  it  of  acacia  wood,  and  put  into  it 
the  Tables  of  the  Ten  Words,  elsewhere  known  as  the 
Tables  of  Covenant.  This  ark,  from  that  time  onward, 
was  known  as  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant.'  This  became 
its  usual  name,  evidently  because  the  Tables  of  Covenant 
were  inside  it. 

In  the  P  code,  on  the  other  hand,  we  read  that  Moses 
was  ordered  at  Sinai  to  make  an  Ark  of  the  Testimony,^ 
and  that  he  did  so.^  It  is  to  be  assumed  that  this  name 
was  derived  from  the  fact  that  the  Tables  of  Testimony 
were  kept  within  it. 

The  hypothesis  may  be  advanced  that  these  two  arks 
were  really  one  and  the  same.  But  this  is  difficult  to 
believe  in  view  of  their  subsequent  history.  Let  us 
observe  this  briefly. 

The  History  of  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 

In  the  first  place,  in  the  march  through  the  wilderness, 
according  to  the  E  document,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
was  carried  in  front  of  the  army,'*  while  in  the  P  document 
we  constantly  read  that  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony  was 
borne  in  the  midst  of  the  host.^     Why  the  difference  ? 

When,  according  to  E,  the  people  broke  up  camp  and 
set  forth  from  Horeb,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  went  before 
them,  and  at  the  secession  at  Kadesh,  it  remained  with 
Moses  by  the  camp.^     It  was  still  with  Moses  and  his 

I  Deut.    io:8. 

a  Exod.  25:16,  21,  22;  26:33,34;  27:21;  30:6,26;  31:7.  ^ 

3Exod.  39:35;  40:3,5,20,21;  Num.  4:5;   7:89. 

4  E.  g..  Num.  10:33.  5  E.  g.,  Num.  10:11-28.  ^  Num.  14:44. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ARK  OF  THE  COVENANT      i8i 

people,  the  "priests  the  Levites"  bearing  it,  when  Moses 
delivered  the  D  code  in  Moab.'  When  Joshua  passed 
over  the  Jordan  with  his  army,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
was  carried  over  before  them  until  they  reached  the  midst 
of  the  river,  where  it  was  held  until  the  army  had  passed 
over.^  When  Jericho  was  captured,  the  Ark  of  the  Cove- 
nant was  carried  by  the  priests  before  the  army  in  the 
march  around  the  city.^  It  remained  with  the  camp  at 
Jericho  until  the  whole  army  went  up  to  take  Ai/  When 
Joshua  and  his  people  went  up  to  Ebal  and  Gerizim  to 
read  and  record  the  D  code,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  was 
with  them.^ 

From  I  Chron.  17:5,  6  we  learn  that  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant*^  was  not  placed  in  any  permanent  house  of  its 
own  at  this  time,  but  that  it  was  continually  moved  about 
from  sanctuary  to  sanctuary,  and  from  tent  to  tent.  We 
know  of  the  following  stations  where  it  was  placed  at 
different  times:  Bethel;^  Shiloh^  (in  the  time  of  Eli); 
the  battle  of  Eben-ezer;^  in  the  hands  of  the  PhiHstines;'° 
Ashdod  in  the  temple  of  the  Philistine  god,  Dagon;" 
Gath;'^  Ekron;'^  Beth-Shemesh'"^  (where  it  was  restored 
to  the  Hebrew  people) ;  Kirjath-Jearim;'^  the  house  of 
Obed-Edom  (whither  David  removed  it)  ;'^  Jerusalem,  the 
City  of  David,   at   the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah   or 

1  Deut.  31:9,  25,  26.  8  I  Sam.  4:3,  4. 

2  Josh.,  chaps.  3,  4.  9  I  Sam.  4:5. 


3  Josh.  6:4-13. 

4  Josh.  7 : 6. 
s  Josh.  8:33. 

6  I  Chron.  17:1. 

7  Judg.  20:27. 
15 1  Sam.  6:21;  7:1,2;  II  Sam.  6:2-9 


°  I  Sam.  4:11. 

1  I  Sam.  5:1. 

2  I  Sam.  5:8. 

3 1  Sam.  5:10. 
4  I  Sam.  6:13-15,  18,  19. 
I  Chron.  13:3-9. 


16  II  Sam.  6:10-12;   I  Chron.  13:13,  14. 


1 82  THE  SETS  OF  TABLES  AND  THE  ARKS 

Oman;'  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  (whither  Solomon  re- 
moved it).^  In  every  one  of  these  cases  it  is  the  Ark  of 
the  Covenant,  not  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony,  with  which 
we  are  dealing.  It  was  this  same  Ark  of  the  Covenant 
which,  after  all  these  wanderings,  finally  found  rest  in 
the  position  of  honor  in  the  temple  of  Jerusalem. 

The  History  of  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony 

Meanwhile  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony  had  a  very  differ- 
ent history. 

In  Num.  4:5  the  ordinance  is  given  for  the  service  of 
the  Levites  in  taking  care  of  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony,  and 
in  Num.  7:8,  9  we  are  told  that  Yahweh  spoke  to  Moses 
from  upon  this  ark.  In  Josh.  4:16  we  are  told  that  this 
ark  was  carried  up  from  the  Jordan  when  the  P  people 
entered  Canaan.  Here  all  mention  of  the  Ark  of  the 
Testimony  ends  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Instead,  there  are  frequent  mentions  of  the  Tent  of 
Testimony  and  the  Tabernacle  of  Testimony,  in  which 
the  Ark  of  the  Testimony  was  lodged.  And  instead  of 
the  language.  Tent  of  Testimony,  we  have,  in  a  large 
number  of  places,  the  term,  Tent  of  Meeting.  But  this 
latter  term  is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Greek,  which  trans- 
lates the  places  where  the  Hebrew  has  it  with  the  term. 
Tent  of  Testimony.  And  in  this  the  Greek  is  probably 
correct.  In  three  places  the  term  is  used  for  the  tent  in 
which  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  kept.  But  in  P  the 
term  in  the  original  is  different,  the  word  being  mishkan, 
meaning   "tabernacle"   or   "dwelling-place."     By   these 

'  II  Sam  6:15-17;  15:24,  25,  29;  I  Kings  3:15;  I  Chron.  6:31;  15:1 — 
17:1;   II  Chron.  1:4. 

'I  Kings  6:19;  8:1-9;  I  Chron.  22:19;  28:2,  18;  II  Chron.  5:2-10; 
6:11,  41;   8:11;  35:3. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ARK  OF  THE  TESTIMONY    183 

terms  we  are  able  to  trace  the  history  of  the  Ark  of  the 
Testimony. 

Now,  we  read  in  Josh.  18:1,  "And  the  whole  congre 
gation  of  the  children  of  Israel  assembled  themselves 
together  at  Shiloh,  and  set  up  the  tent  of  meeting  there, 
and  the  land  was  subdued  before  them."     The  words 
"congregation"  and  "tent  of  meeting"  are  expressions  of 
the  P  document.     We  find,  then,  that  when  the  conquest 
of  Canaan  described  in  P  was  over,  the  tent  of  meeting 
was  set  up  at  Shiloh.     From  Judg.,  chap.  21,  and  from  I 
Sam.,  chaps.  1-4,  we  know  that  there  was  a  temple  or 
house  of  Yahweh  in  this  place.     Even  though  this  temple 
may  have  been  in  Shiloh  before  the  Tent  of  Meeting  was 
set  up  there,  we  are  not  debarred  from  believing  that  the 
Tent  of  Meeting  was  placed  there  as  well.     It  is  to  be 
noted,  however,  that  nothing  is  said  in  this  passage  about 
the  holocaust  altar.     In  I  Sam.   2:22  there  is  another 
reference  to  the  Tent  of  Meeting  in  Shiloh.     It  is  true, 
as  has  often  been  pointed  out,  that  this  statement  is  lack- 
ing in  the  Vatican  codex  of  the  Greek.     This,  though, 
does  not  necessarily  mean  that  the  statement  contained 
in  the  Hebrew  and  the  Alexandrian  codex  is  incorrect. 
But  even  in  these  nothing  is  said  about  the  holocaust  altar. 
All  we  know  is  that  at  the  end  of  the  conquest  the  Tent 
of  Meeting  was  at  Shiloh,  and,  too,  in  the  time  of  Eli. 
The  altar  of  the  holocaust,  the  "Altar  of  Yahweh"  as  it 
is  called,  may  not,  however,  have  been  set  up  there.     There 
are  indications  that  it  was  placed  among  the  Gibeonites. 
Later,  in  I  Sam.  14: 18  we  are  told  that  the  Ark  of  God 
was  at  that  time  in  Gibeah.'     The  Ark  of  God  referred 

I  The  Greek  in  this  passage,  it  is  true,  reads  "ephod"  instead  of  "ark,"  but 
both  readings  should  be  admitted,  for  where  the  ark  was  there  naturally  an  ephod 
would  be  also. 


1 84  THE  SETS  OF  TABLES  AND  THE  ARKS 

to  here  can  be  only  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony,  because  we 
know  that  the  other  ark,  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  was  at 
that  time  in  Kirjath-Jearim.  Gibeah  and  Gibeon  are 
probably  the  same  place,  the  modern  Jeba. '  In  Gibeah- 
Gibeon,  therefore,  we  find  under  the  priestly  care  of  Ahi- 
jah,  great  grandson  of  Eli,  the  Ark  of  God,  i.  e.,  the  Ark 
of  the  Testimony, 

When  David  arranged  the  courses  of  the  priesthood, 
he  ordained  as  follows:  "And  Zadok  the  priest,  and  his 
brethren  the  priests,  before  the  tabernacle  of  Yahweh, 
in  the  high-place  that  was  at  Gibeon,  to  offer  burnt-offer- 
ings unto  Yahweh  upon  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  con- 
tinually, morning  and  evening,  even  according  to  all  that 
is  written  in  the  Taw  of  Yahweh,  which  he  commanded 
unto  Israel."^  Here  then  we  have  an  explicit  reference 
which  states  that  the  Tabernacle  of  Yahweh,  as  well  as 
the  altar  of  burnt-offerings,  was  located  in  Gibeon. 

And  this  is  amply  substantiated  by  the  later  history  of 
David  and  Solomon. 

When  David  had  numbered  the  people,  his  act  dis- 

I  In  the  Old  Testament  we  have  three  local  names,  Geba,  Gibeah,  and 
Gibeon,  which  are  often  confounded.  Gibeah  and  Gibeon  were  located  close 
by  one  another,  possibly  were  the  same  place,  Gibeah  denoting  the  "hill-top," 
and  Gibeon  the  city  on  the  slopes  of  it.  Saul  is  said  to  have  resided  at  all  three 
places  (I  Sam.  10:26;  11:4;  I  Chron.  8:29-35;  9"35~4i)-  The  place  is  called 
Gibeah  of  Saul  (I  Sam.  11:4),  and  again  Geba  of  Elohim  (I  Sam.  10:5).  Ahijah, 
son  of  Ahitub,  great-grandson  of  Eli,  had  an  ephod  there,  which  he  as  a  priest 
consulted  (I  Sam.  14:3).  It  was  in  Gibeah  that  Saul  built  an  altar  to  Yahweh 
(I  Sam.  14:35),  but  Gibeon  had  a  stone,  and  the  probability  is  that  this  was  the 
altar  which  Saul  consecrated  (II  Sam.  20:  8).  While  Gibeah  was  Saul's  capital, 
Gibeon  is  referred  to  as  the  capital  of  Ish-bosheth,  his  son  (II  Sam.  2:12-24). 
When  David  executed  the  seven  sons  of  Saul  in  Gibeah,  the  Greek  reads  Gibeon 
(II  Sam.  21:6).  Without  denying  that  there  may  have  been  a  Geba  or  Gibeah 
farther  west,  the  modern  Jib,  it  seems  certain  that  the  Gibeah,  Gibeon,  and  Geba 
of  Saul  and  his  sons  were  but  different  names  for  the  same  place. 

'  I  Chron.  16:39,  4°- 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ARK  OF  THE  TESTIMONY     185 

pleased  Yahweh,  and  an  angel  with  sword  drawn  appeared 
before  him  in  the  threshing-floor  of  Araunah.'  This 
angel  prevented  David  from  going  to  Gibeon  to  make 
sacrifices  there.  Because  of  this,  David  bought  the  place 
where  the  angel  had  stood,  and  consecrated  there  an  altar 
of  burnt-offering  for  Israel.  "At  that  time,  when  David 
saw  that  Yahweh  had  answered  him  in  the  threshing-floor 
of  Oman  the  Jebusite,  then  he  sacrificed  there.  For  the 
Tabernacle  of  Yahweh,  which  Moses  made  in  the  wflder- 
ness,  and  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  were  at  that  time  at 
Gibeon.  But  David  could  not  go  before  it  to  inquire  of 
God,  for  he  was  afraid,  because  of  the  sword  of  the  angel 
of  Yahweh.  Then  David  said,  This  is  the  house  of  the 
Lord  God,  and  this  is  the  altar  of  burnt-offerings  for 
Israel.'"  We  have  thus  two  altars  of  burnt-offerings, 
one  at  Gibeon  and  the  other  in  Jerusalem.  The  latter 
statement  is  verified  by  II  Sam.  24:25.  We  have  also  a 
Tabernacle  of  Yahweh  in  Gibeon,  at  the  same  time  that 
the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  rested  in  the  city  of  David  in 
Jerusalem,  in  a  dwelling-place  which  David  made  espe- 
cially for  it. 

That  there  was  one  Ark,  that  of  the  Testimony,  with 
its  tent  and  altar  at  Gibeon,  while  another,  that  of  the 
Covenant,  with  its  tent  and  altar,  was  placed  in  Jerusalem, 
is  plain  from  an  incident  in  Solomon's  reign.  In  I  Kings 
3:4,5  we  are  told  that  when  he  became  king  he  left  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  and  went  up  to  Gibeon  "to  sacrifice 
there;  for  that  was  the  great  high-place.  A  thousand 
burnt-offerings  did  Solomon  offer  upon  that  altar.  In 
Gibeon  Yahweh  appeared  to  Solomon  in  a  dream  by 

I  II  Sam.  24:16;  I  Chron.  21:15. 
'1  Chron.   21:28 — 22:1. 


l86  THE  SETS  OF  TABLES  AND  THE  ARKS 

night."  Then  follows  the  story  of  Solomon's  dream  and 
the  gift  of  wisdom.  Then  we  read,  "And  Solomon  awoke, 
and  behold,  it  was  a  dream,  and  he  came  to  Jerusalem, 
and  stood  before  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  of  Yahweh, 
and  offered  peace-offerings,  and  made  a  feast  to  all  his 
servants."' 

This  account  is  also  contained,  a  little  more  fully,  in 
Chronicles."  "So  Solomon,  and  all  the  congregation 
with  him,  went  to  the  high-place  at  Gibeon;  for  there 
was  the  Tent  of  Meeting  of  God,  which  Moses  the  servant 
of  Yahweh  had  made  in  the  wilderness.  But  the  Ark 
0}  God  David  had  brought  up  from  Kirjath-Jearim  to 
the  place  that  David  had  prepared  for  it:  for  he  had 
pitched  a  tent  for  it  at  Jerusalem.  INIoreover  the  brazen 
altar  that  Bezalel,  the  son  of  Uri,  the  son  of  Hur  had 
made,  was  there ^  before  the  Tabernacle  of  Yahweh:  and 
Solomon  and  the  congregation  sought  unto  it.  And 
Solomon  went  up  thither  to  the  brazen  altar  before  Yah- 
weh, which  was  at  the  Tent  of  Meeting,  and  offered  a 
thousand  holocausts  upon  it."  Then  follows  the  same 
account  of  the  dream,,  and  of  the  return  to  Jerusalem."* 

The  historicity  of  this  account  in  Chronicles  has  been 
doubted,  on  the  plea  that  the  author  was  of  the  late  priestly 
school,  and  so  untrustworthy,  But  this  can  hardly  be 
maintained  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  author  of  Kings, 
a  man  of  the  Deuteronomic  school,  and  using  quite  dift'er- 
ent  sources,  gives  us  substantially  the  same  account. 

The  passage  is  valuable,  for  it  gives  us  quite  plainly 
the  information  that  in  Solomon's  time  there  were  two 
arks.     We  are  told  that  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  in 

1  I  Kings  3:15.  ^  I.  e.,  in  Gibeon. 

2  II  Chron.  1:3-6.  4  II  Chron.  1:7-13. 


THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  ARK  OF  THE  TESTIMONY    187 

Jerusalem.  Yet  we  are  informed  that  the  brazen  altar 
at  Gibeon  was  "before  Yahweh,"  a  phrase  which  can 
mean,  and  does  mean,  only  "before  the  Ark  of  Yahweh." 
As  we  know  of  only  two  arks  among  the  Hebrews,  and 
as  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  at  Jerusalem,  and  as  there 
was  evidently  another  one  at  Gibeon,  this  latter  must  have 
been  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony.  And  this  is  made  the 
more  certain  by  the  use  of  the  word  "tabernacle"  in  the 
passage,  a  word  found  only  in  P,  the  document  wherein 
this  latter  ark  was  given  to  the  Hebrews. 

When  Solomon  built  his  temple,  it  was  the  Ark  of  the 
Covenant  which  he  placed  there.'  It  is  explicitly  stated 
that  "there  was  nothing  in  the  Ark  save  the  two  tables 
of  stone  which  Moses  put  there  at  Horeb,  when  Yahweh 
made  a  covenant  with  the  children  of  Israel,  when  they 
came  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."'  Nothing  is  mentioned 
of  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony  at  the  consecration  of  this 
temple.  What  was  the  further  history  of  this  latter  ark 
is  not  pertinent  to  this  present  inquiry.  Perhaps  it  may 
be  taken  up  in  some  later  study. 

The  point  which  we  have  endeavored  to  prove  is  that  the 
Ark  of  the  Covenant  and  the  Ark  of  the  Testimony  are  two 
different  things,  with  two  different  histories,  that  they  can- 
not be  considered  as  identical,  and  that  they  form  one  of  the 
great  differences  between  the  Exodus  of  JED  and  the 
Exodus  of  P. 

1  I  Kings  8:6. 

2  I  Kings  8:9. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

Differences  Between  P  and  JED. — The  Legislations  at 
Horeb  and  Sinai 

If,  now,  we  turn  to  the  laws  promulgated  at  Horeb  and 
Sinai,  i.  e.,  the  laws  of  the  E  and  P  codes,  we  find  not  only 
a  great  difference  in  phraseology,  which  might  be 
accounted  for  as  the  result  of  varying  traditions,  but  a 
great  difference  in  content.  The  enactments  are  often 
so  contradictory,  so  divergent  in  tone,  purpose,  and  word- 
ing, that  it  seems  impossible  that  more  than  one  of  the 
codes  could  have  been  given  or  accepted  at  one  time. 

I.     Laws  of  P  Contrary  to  Laws  of  E 

First  of  all  let  us  compare  some  of  the  laws  which  differ 
from  one  another: 

a)  In  regard  to  the  place  of  sacrifice  the  E  code  ordains, 
"An  altar  of  earth  thou  shalt  make  unto  me,  and  shalt 
sacrifice  thereon  thy  burnt-offerings  and  thy  peace-offer- 
ings, thy  sheep,  and  thine  oxen:  in  every  place  where  I 
cause  my  name  to  be  remembered  I  will  come  unto  thee 
and  I  will  bless  thee.'"  The  P  code  says,  ''And  thou 
shalt  say  unto  them,  Whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  house 
of  Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn  among  them, 
that  offers  a  burnt-offering  or  sacrifice,  and  bringeth  it 
not  unto  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  to  sacrifice  it 
unto  Yahweh,  even  that  man  shall  be  cut  oft'  from  his 
people."^ 

These  laws  are  so  entirely  contrary  to  each  other  that  it 
seems  almost  impossible  that  they  are  variants  of  one 

•  Exod.  20:24.  *  Lev.  17:8,  9. 

188 


LAWS  OF  P  CONTRARY  TO  LAWS  OF^E      189 

original  commandment.  Even  though  we  may  be  willing 
to  admit  that  the  P  law  refers  to  the  wandering  in  the 
wilderness,  and  the  E  law  to  conditions  after  the  settle- 
ment, the  laws  cannot  have  developed  out  of  one  original, 
common  to  both. 

b)  The  E  law  on  Hebrew  slaves'  differs  so  radically 
from  the  P  law  on  the  same  subject'  that  it  is  hard  to  see 
how  they  could  once  have  been  the  same. 

c)  In  E^  any  sanctuary  ("place")  or  altar  is  acceptable 
as  an  asylum,  but  in  P^  certain  cities  are  appointed  for 

that  purpose. 

d)  The  law  in  E  on  sorcery ^    is  quite  different  from 

those  in  P.^ 

e)  The  offerings  in  the  E  code  belong  to  Yahweh,^  but 
in  P  they  are  handed  over  to  Aaron.  ^ 

/)  In  E  every  Israelite  is  forbidden  to  eat  the  flesh  of 
an  animal  that  has  been  torn.  Such  flesh  must  be  thrown 
to  the  dogs.^  But  in  P  the  Israelite  is  permitted  to 
eat  such  flesh,  but  it  is  provided  that  if  he  does  he  shall 
be  ceremoniafly  unclean  until  even.'° 

g)  Other  laws  like  those  on  the  Sabbath  and  the  Pass- 
over show  the  same  marked  differentiation. 

It  is  argued  that  discrepancies  and  contradictions 
such  as  these  are  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  lapse  of  time 
between  800  and  444,  when  the  two  codes  are  said  to  have 
been  promulgated.  But  that  hypothesis  is  impossible 
to  us,  who  have  seen  that  both  these  codes  were  in  opera- 
tion at  least  three  hundred  years  earlier  than  either  of 

1  Exod.   21:2-11.  6  Lev.  19:266,  31;  20:6,27. 

2  Lev.  25:39-46.  7  Exod.  22:29a;    23:19a. 
sExod.  21:13,  14.                              8  Num.  18:12,  13. 

4  Num.  35:9-29.  9  Exod.  22:31. 

5  Exod.  22:18.  '°  Lev.  17:15;  cf.  Lev.  11:40. 


IQO  THE  LEGISLATIONS  AT  HOREB  AND  SINAI 

these  dates,  and  have  concluded  that  they  were  most 
probably  promulgated  during  the  wanderings  in  the  wild- 
erness, even  as  they  themselves  say.  It  would  seem  then 
that  the  legislations  of  Horeb  and  Sinai  were  two  different 
things. 

II.     P  Laws  not  Found  in  E 

Admitting  the  fallacy  of  the  argument  from  silence, 
it  is  nevertheless  worth  noting  that  P  has  a  large  number 
of  laws  not  found  in  E.  We  have  shown  above  that  E 
has  lost  its  "statutes"  or  ritual  laws,'  and  so  a  comparison 
of  the  codes  in  this  realm  cannot  be  undertaken.  But 
even  the  "judgments,"  or  civil  laws,  are  found  to  be  less 
complete  in  E  than  in  P. 

For  instance,  although  the  E  document  knows  that 
Moses'  hand  became  leprous,  and  that  Miriam  was  so 
smitten  with  the  disease  that  the  camp  was  delayed  for 
seven  days,^  still  E  has  no  law  on  leprosy;  but  P  has  a 
very  complete  law  covering  the  subject.^ 

E  has  no  law  on  Nazirites,  but  P  defines  that  order 
minutely."*  P  has  laws,  too,  on  clean  and  unclean  animals,^ 
on  disfigurement  in  mourning,^  tithes,'  mazzebas  and 
stones,^  rights  and  revenues  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,^  Molech- 
worship,'°  admixtures  overstepping  the  boundaries  of 
nature,"  tassels,'^  adultery,'^  incest,'"*  cleanliness  in 
camp,'^  vows,'^  gleanings, '^  just  weights,'*  etc.,  of  none 
of  which  we  have  a  trace  in  E. 

1  Pp.  101-103,  106.  1°  Lev.  18:21;    20:2-5. 

2  Num.  12:15.  II  Lev.  19:19. 

3  Lev.,  chaps.  13,  14.  12  Num.    15:37-41. 

4  Num.  6:1-21.  13  Lev.  18:20;    20:10. 
s  Lev.  11:2-47.  14  Lev.  18:8;   20:11. 

6  Lev.  19:28.  IS  Num.  5:1-4.  ^ 

7  Lev.  27:30-33.  i<^  Num.  30:2  ff. 

8  Lev.  26:1a.  17  Lev.  19:9,10;    23:22. 
5>  Lev.  7:32-34;   Num.  18:1-20.  iS  Lev.  19:35,  36. 


SIMILAR  LAWS  IN  E  AND  P  191 

III.     Laws  of  E  not  in  P 

On  the  other  hand,  E  has  the  Decalogue,  of  which  P 
has  not  a  trace.  This  law  was  such  an  important  factor 
in  the  life  of  the  Jews  that  it  is  hard  to  see  how  P  could  have 
omitted  it  from  the  code,  if  the  code  were  the  same  as  that 
of  Horeb. 

In  like  manner,  E  has  laws  on  seething  a  kid  in  mother's 
milk,^  straying  animals,  ="  seduction,  ^  pledges, -*  and  man- 
stealing,  ^  of  none  of  which  P  shows  any  trace.  Some  of 
these  laws  we  have  already  found  to  be  very  old,  as  old 
as  the  Code  of  Hammurabi.  But  why  should  they  be 
left  out  of  P,  otherwise  so  circumstantial  and  full,  which 
so  often  repeats  one  law  over  and  over  ? 

IV .     Similar  Laws  in  E  and  P 

It  is  also  true  that  there  are  a  number  of  laws  in  which 
E  and  P  agree,  and  where  P  certainly  seems  to  record  the 
same  legislation  as  E  does.  Compare,  e.  g.,  the  laws  on 
idolatry,^  manslaughter, ^  cursing  of  parents,^  lex  talionis,^ 
lying  with  beasts,^°  strangers,"  usury,^^  perjury,^^  the 
sabbatical  year,'-*  annual  pilgrimages,'^  and  the  Feast 
of  Unleavened  Bread. '^ 

1  Exod.  23:196;  cf.  34:266.  4Exod.  22:26,  27. 

2  Exod.  23:4,  5.  5  Exod.  21:16. 

3  Exod.  22:16,  17. 

6  Exod.  20:23  (E);  20:4  (E);  34:17(7);  Lev.  19:4  (P)- 

7  Exod.  21:12  (E);  Lev.  24:17,  216  (P);  Num.  35:16  (P). 

8  Exod.  21:17  (E);  Lev.  20:9  (P). 

9  Exod.  21:23-25  (E);   Lev.  24:19,  20  (P). 
i°Exod.  22:19  (E);  Lev.  18:23  (P);   20:15  (P). 

II  Exod.  22:21  (E);   23:9  (E);  Lev.  19:33-34  (P)- 
1=  Exod.  22:25  (E);  Lev.  25:35-37  (P). 

13  Exod.  23:1-3  (E);   Lev.  19:15,  16  (P). 

14  Exod.  23:10,  II  (E);  Lev.  25:1-7  (P). 

15  Exod.  23:14-17  (E);  34:186,  22-25  (J);  Lev.,  chap.  23  (P);  Num., 
chaps.  28,  29  (P). 

16  Exod.  23:15  (E);   34:18  (J);   Lev.  23:6  (P). 


192  THE  LEGISLATIONS  AT  HOREB  AND  SINAI 

But  we  have  pointed  out  above'  that  some  of  the  laws 
of  P  have  both  the  viewpoint  and  language  of  the  Toledoth 
Book,  and  if  we  assign  that  book  to  the  period  of  the  JE 
code  or  codes,  we  may  well  assume  that  there  were  older 
P  laws,  which  indeed  were  promulgated  at  Horeb  and 
which  descended  through  certain  Levitical  clans  (the 
Mosaic)  and  were  finally  merged  with  the  Aaronic  laws 
of  Sinai. 

'  P.  56.. 


CHAPTER  XX 
Differences  Between  P  and  JED.— The  Priesthoods 

To  be  able  to  conclude  that  a  man  was  a  priest  it  is 
not  necessary  to  rely  alone  on  the  fact  that  he  was  called 
a  priest.  If  we  find  him  performing  the  acts  of  a  priest, 
we  may  safely  conclude  that  he  was  one. 

Now  in  the  E  code  there  are  mentioned  two  men,  Moses 
and  Aaron.  The  latter  is  neither  called  a  priest,  nor  do 
we  find  him  performing  any  priestly  acts,  except  in  the 
worship  of  the  golden  calf,  which  was  admittedly  illegal. 
But  we  do  find  that  Moses,  though  not  called  a  priest, 
does  perform  priestly  acts.  For  instance,  it  is  he,  not 
Aaron,  who  offers  sacrifices;'  it  is  he  who  inquires  from 
Yahweh;^  it  is  he  who  intercedes  for  Miriam  in  her  lep- 
rosy,^ as  well  as  at  other  times  ;^  all  of  these  were  priestly 
acts.  That  they  were  all  the  priestly  acts  of  the  E  code  we 
cannot  say,  because,  as  we  have  seen,  the  ritual  laws  of  this 
code  have  been  lost.  This  much,  however,  is  certainly 
true,  that  in  E  it  is  Moses,  not  Aaron,  who  acts  as  the 
priest.  And  the  same  thing  is  true  of  D  and  J.  Inci- 
dentally, it  may  be  interesting  to  note  that  in  this  tradition 
Aaron  is  the  younger  brother  of  Moses. 

In  the  P  code,  on  the  contrary,  Aaron  is  the  elder 
brother  of  Moses.  Moses  ordains  him  to  the  priest- 
hood, whereupon  Moses  ceases  to  perform  priestly  func- 
tions. Aaron  from,  this  time  onward  is  the  priest.  And 
not  only  does  he  perform  the  priestly  acts,  but  from  the 

I  Exod.  24:5-8.  3  Num.,  12:13. 

'  Exod.  33:7-11.  4E.  g.,  Exod.  32:30-34. 

193 


194  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

time  of  his  ordination  onward  he  is  spoken  of  as  "the 
priest,"  and  his  sons  and  successors  are  called  "the  sons 
of  Aaron,  the  priests."  This  is  plainly  a  very  different 
state  of  affairs  from  that  we  found  existing  in  JED. 

Possibly  this,  by  itself,  might  be  explained  as  a  mere 
difference  in  tradition.  If,  though,  we  were  to  find  that 
there  were  two  distinct  priesthoods  among  the  Hebrews 
in  later  generations,  it  would  throw  confirmatory  light 
upon  the  hypothesis  that  it  is  a  difference  in  fact,  and 
not  in  mere  tradition,  that  exists  between  the  two  stories. 
And  since  we  have  already  found  so  many  differences 
between  them  which  can  hardly  be  explained  as  due  to 
mere  varying  traditions,  the  search  for  such  distinct 
priesthoods  is  quite  legitimate.  What,  then,  do  we  find 
to  be  true  of  the  priesthood  in  later  generations  ? 

"Priest,"  a  Technical  Term  in  P 

First  of  all  we  wish  to  emphasize — as  has  already  been 
noted — that  in  the  P  document  the  title  "the  priest"  is 
affixed  to  Aaron's  name,  and  this  so  uniformly  that  it 
becomes  almost  a  part  of  the  name  itself.  Further,  when 
Aaron  dies,  and  Eleazar,  his  son,  is  ordained  to  the  high- 
priesthood,  to  his  name  also  the  title  of  "the  priest"  is  af- 
fixed. And  this  name,  as  a  title,  we  find  never  used  in  JED. 
In  E,  of  course,  all  the  people  are  spoken  of  as  priests  when 
they  perform  priestly  acts,  and  in  D  all  the  Levites  are  so 
spoken  of  when  performing  their  official  duties;  but  the 
name  is  not  used  as  the  title  of  any  one  man.  When, 
then,  in  later  periods  we  find  men  bearing  this  title  affixed 
to  their  names,  it  is  only  natural  to  associate  them  with 
the  priesthood  of  which  Aaron  was  the  founder. 

In  the  P  document  and  code  we  find,  again  and  again, 


EARLY  HISTORY  OF  THE  AARONIC  PRIESTHOOD     195 

in  vital  connection  with  this  Aaronic  priesthood,  the 
expression,  "priests  and  Levites."  It  is  indeed  so  common 
that  whenever  we  find  the  expression  we  are  safe  in  assum- 
ing that  the  passage  has  at  least  been  influenced  by  a  P 
author  or  editor.  In  the  D  code  we  find  the  expression, 
"the  priests  the  Levites,"  i.e.,  "the  Levitical  priests." 
When  we  find  this  phrase  we  may  with  equal  certainty 
assume  a  D  author  or  editor.  It  has  long  been  felt  that 
the  two  expressions  are  by  no  means  synonymous,  and 
that  in  all  probability  they  stand  for  quite  different  ideas 
and  institutions.  We  have  already  seen  how  the  Levitical 
priesthood  in  D  had  its  origin  and  development.  It  is 
now  to  be  our  attempt  to  trace  the  origin  and  development 
of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  in  its  triple  order  of  high-priest, 
priest,  and  Levite. 

Early  History  of  the  Aaronic  Priesthood 

According  to  the  P  document,  the  army  that  left  Egypt 
seems  to  have  been  exceedingly  small.  In  fact  we  do  not 
know  of  how  many  men  it  was  composed,  because  the 
second  half  of  Exod.  12:37  belongs,  apparently,  to  E. 
There  it  is  stated  that  there  were  about  six  hundred  clans 
on  foot,  but  the  expression  "about"  betrays  no  connection 
with  those  of  the  early  compiler  of  P.  We  are  therefore 
left  entirely  without  data  in  regard  to  the  size  of  the  P 
army.  We  do  know  that  there  were  three  tribes  repre- 
sented in  this  exodus,"  Reuben,  Simeon,  and  Levi.  It  is 
possible  that  these  made  up  the  great  bulk  of  the  army. 
We  need  not,  however,  understand  this  passage  as  imply- 
ing that  all  the  people  of  these  tribes  at  this  time  came  out 
of  Egypt.  The  P  editor  takes  great  pains  to  enumerate 
just  what  families  of  each  of  them  had  been  in  Egypt.     Of 

I  Exod.  6 :  14-26. 


196  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

the  tribe  of  Levi  there  had  been  only  three  families,  Ger- 
shom,  Kohath,  and  Merari.  Of  these  Gershom  and 
Merari  had  but  two  clans  each.  The  family  of  Kohath 
had  four,  the  oldest  of  which  was  Amram.  To  this  clan 
of  Amram  belonged  Aaron  and  Moses,  the  latter  of  whom 
became  the  leader  of  the  people,  while  the  former  was 
chosen  to  head  their  priesthood. 

Aaron  had  four  sons:  Nadab,  Abihu,  Eleazar,  and 
Ithamar.  The  P  editor,  and  later  P  writers,  including 
the  Chronicler,  say  that  both  Nadab  and  Abihu  died 
early  in  life.  It  might  even  possibly  be  supposed  that 
these  two  were  not  the  sons  of  Aaron  according  to  P  at  all. 
The  JE  document  mentions  them  as  sons  of  its  Aaron,  but 
knows  nothing  of  either  Eleazar  or  Ithamar. 

It  was  this  people  that  came  to  Sinai  and  received  the 
ordinance  to  build  the  Ark  and  Tent  of  the  Testimony. 
Aaron  was  appointed  high-priest,  and  placed  in  charge 
of  the  worship  which  was  conducted  in  that  tent.  His 
two  sons,  Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  but  no  other  Levites,  were 
appointed  to  the  second  order,  the  priesthood,  with  a 
right  for  the  firstborn  of  succession  to  the  high-priesthood. 
The  Levites  as  a  whole  were  given  the  menial  offices 
connected  with  keeping  up  the  worship. 

In  the  second  year  of  the  Exodus,  then,  according  to  P 
the  hierarchy  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  consisted  of  one 
high-priest,  Aaron,  two  priests,  Eleazar  and  Ithamar,  and 
a  few  Levites  from  the  other  nine  Levitical  clans.  We 
know  that  the  Levitical  clans  of  Izhar  and  Uzziel  had 
only  three  members  each.  Thirty  Levites  would  then  be  a 
fair  estimate  of  the  number  of  the  third  order,  this  being 
probably  about  as  many  Levites  as  there  were  in  the 
army.     The  dimensions  of  the  court  around  the  Tent  of 


THE  MUSTERING  AT  SINAI  197 

Meeting,  50  x  100  cubits,  presuppose  that  there  was  a  very 
small  number  of  people  to  be  ministered  to.  A  church 
80X160  feet  would  hardly  hold  more  than,  say,  1,500 
people,  after  allowance  was  made  for  the  brazen  altar  and 
for  the  Tent  of  Meeting.  Three  priests  could  very  well 
have  handled  the  services  for  a  congregation  of  such  a 
size,  and  thirty  odd  Levites  could  easily  have  taken  care 
of  the  tent  and  its  furniture. 

The  Mustering  at  Sinai 

Just  after  the  ordination  of  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and 
when  the  Tent  of  Meeting  had  been  reared  in  the  wilder- 
ness of  Sinai,  Yahweh  ordered  Moses  to  take  the  sum  of 
the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel.  Aaron  and 
Moses  complied.'  This  "numbering"  was  not  a  mere 
"numbering,"  but,  as  the  Hebrew  word  invariably  means, 
a  "  mustering-in "  of  an  army.  Since  there  would  have 
been  no  point  in  mustering  in  an  army  already  in  active 
service,  there  must  have  been  new  forces  to  be  enrolled. 
In  other  words,  Moses'  army  must  have  been  augmented 
at  this  time. 

From  whence  did  these  new  troops  come  ?  We  can, 
of  course,  state  that  they  were  Hebrews,  and  that  they 
belonged  to  eleven  tribes  of  the  children  of  Israel.  How 
many  of  them  came  ?  We  must,  of  course,  discard  at  the 
outset  the  absurd  statement  of  the  P  compiler  that  there 
were  603,550.  Petrie  has  shown  satisfactorily^  that  the 
word  translated  "thousands"  should  here  be  rendered, 
as  in  many  other  places  it  is,  "  clans  "  or  "  tents. ' '  Accord- 
ing to  this,  undoubtedly  the  correct  exegesis,  all  the  people 
now  numbered   598   clans,   or   5,550  soldiers.     In   the 

I  Num.,  chap.  i.  »  Sinai,  pp.  207-15. 


198  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

original  P  document  it  stated  how  many  clans  and  how 
many  fighting  men  each  tribe  had  furnished.  The  com- 
piler, taking  the  word  alaph,  "clan,"  in  its  other  meaning 
"thousand,"  added  the  number  of  "thousands"  and  the 
original  number  of  men  together,  and  got  603,550.' 

Among  these  tribes  which  were  "mustered  in"  were 
some  Levites,  fugitives,  we  conceive,  from  Palestine. 
They  were  not  numerous  enough  to  make  up  a  tribe,  and 
so,  when  the  other  tribes  were  "numbered,"  they  were 
not  included.^  But  later  on^  the  Levites  had  so  increased 
that  they  could  be  "mustered  in."  Then  they  included 
21  clans — 1,300  persons. 

The  Rebellion  of  Korah 

These  Levites  we  assume  had  a  hereditary  right  to  the 
priesthood.  But  when  they  placed  themselves  under 
Moses  they  were  put  in  the  charge  of  Aaron  and  his  sons, 
the  priests,  on  a  standing  equal  to  that  of  the  Levites  who 
had  been  in  the  army  from  the  beginning.  Thus  they  were 
still  concerned  with  the  worship,  but  were  reduced  from 
their  strictly  priestly  functions.  At  first  they  seemed 
content  to  acquiesce  in  this  arrangement,  apparently 
satisfied  to  receive  the  protection  which  Moses  and  his 
army  afforded  them.  But  this  state  of  content  did  not 
last  long,  and  soon  there  were  murmurs  because  they  had 
been  reduced  to  their  menial  position.  This  discontent 
was  headed  by  one  Korah,  a  Levite.  He  approached 
Moses  and  Aaron,  saying,  "Ye  take  too  much  upon  you, 
seeing  all  the  congregation  is  holy,  every  one  of  them,  and 

I  The  fact  is  that  in  the  older  books  of  the  Bible  numbers  of  people  are 
everywhere  spoken  of  by  the  use  of  the  word  meaning  "clans"  instead  of 
"thousands." 

a  Num.,  chaps,  i,  2.  3  Num.  3:15. 


THE  MUSTERING-IN  OF  LEVITES  I99 

Yahweh  is  among  them.  Wherefore,  then,  lift  ye  up 
yourselves  above  the  assembly  of  Yahweh  ?" ' 

Now,  as  we  have  seen,  this  conception  of  the  entire 
people  as  a  consecrated  priesthood  was  a  part  of  the  E 
idea.  Consequently  this  demand  of  Korah  and  the  two 
hundred  and  fifty  princes  who  were  with  him,  may  be 
explained  as  nothing  more  than  a  demand  that  the  nation 
revert  to  a  regime  previously  in  force  and  under  which  the 
people,  or  a  considerable  portion  of  them,  had  long  been 
living.  Now,  when  we  remember  that  there  was  no  sign 
of  such  murmuring  until  after  the  mustering-in,  what  is 
more  natural  than  to  suppose  that  these  ideas  were  propa- 
gated by  the  new  portions  of  Moses'  troops,  and  therefore 
that  these  recruits  came  from  people  then  living  under  the 
E  code  ? 

The  demand  was  refused  by  Moses,  and  the  resulting 
rebellion  was  put  down.  Korah  and  his  company  at 
length  perished  in  a  plague.  Thereafter  the  Levites  fell 
back  unquestioningly  into  that  place  to  which  Moses  wished 
to  relegate  them.  They  became  the  temple  servants, 
under  the  control  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood  so  lately 
established  at  Sinai.  They  were  "joined  to"  the  Aaronic 
priesthood.^ 

The  Mustering-in  of  Levites 

It  is  not  to  be  assumed  that  all  Levites  then  existing 
joined  Moses  and  Aaron  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai  and 
were  thus  reduced  to  this  lower  grade  of  ministrations. 
We  mentioned  above  that  when  the  eleven  tribes  were 
mustered  in  there  were  few  Levites  among  them.  Shortly 
after,  these  Levites  were  enrolled.     They  had  grown  to 

I  Num.  16:36. 

a  Num.  18:2.    The  word  nilwah  is  a  pun  on  the  name  Levi. 


200  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

the  number  of  21  families,  1,300  persons.'  These  Levites 
were  enrolled  from  a  month  old,  and  upward.  They  were 
accepted  to  redeem  the  firstborn'  of  the  other  tribes  from 
serving  at  the  Tent  of  Meeting. 

A  few  days  later  there  was  a  new  miustering  of  Levites. 
Here  the  text  uses  the  word  for  "  muster  ""*  instead  of  the 
phrase  "enroll  by  numbering"  with  w^hich  we  have  been 
dealing.  This  time  the  mustering  is  concerned  with  men 
from  thirty  to  fifty  years  of  age,  and  is  evidently  for  military 
purposes.  They  comprise  at  this  time  seven  clans,  1,580 
soldiers.  The  difference  between  the  numbers  of  the 
Levites  here  and  at  the  previous  "numbering"  is  remark- 
able. The  great  increase  can  be  accounted  for  only  if  we 
assume  that  between  the  two  there  was  another  large 
increase  of  Moses'  forces. 

But,  large  as  is  this  number  of  Levites  who  joined 
Moses  and  Aaron  at  Sinai,  we  still  have  every  reason  to 
suppose  that  the  greater  portion  of  the  Levitical  tribe  still 
remained  in  Palestine,  never  accepted  the  Sinaitic  code, 
and  therefore  still  remained  Levitical  priests.  We  have 
no  reason  to  assume  that  all  the  tribe  of  Levi  ever  accepted 
the  P  code. 

After  the  rebellion  of  Korah,  the  P  document  gives  but 
a  scanty  record  of  the  proceedings  in  the  wilderness,  until 
the  people  left  the  plains  of  Moab.  The  only  excejjtion 
to  the  general  silence  is  the  record  of  the  death  of  Aaron 
the  priest  at  Mount  Hor  and  the  investiture  of  Eleazar 
the  priest  as  high-priest  in  his  father's  stead.''     In  the 

I  Num.  3:22-43. 

»  The  underlying  idea  of  the  universal  priesthood  in  E  presupposes  that  the 
firstborn  son  of  each  family  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  priest  of  that  family. 

3  Num.  4:36-48.  4  Num.  20:22-29. 


AARONIC  PRIESTHOOD  IN  JOSHUA  AND  JUDGES      20i 

plains  of  Moab  this  Eleazar  the  priest  led  the  princes  of 
the  congregation  and  the  army  in  the  war  against  the 
Midianites.  Since  we  saw  that  the  Levites  were  "mus- 
tered in,'"  we  would  naturally  expect  to  find  them  doing 
military  service ;  and  here  we  find  the  leader  of  the  Aaronic 
Levitical  priesthood  in  truth  the  leader  of  the  army. 

The  Aaronic  Priesthood  in  Joshua  and  Judges 

In  the  early  part  of  the  Book  of  Joshua  we  have  only  a 
fragment  of  the  P  document,  enough  to  indicate  that  the 
Ark  of  the  Testimony,  carried  by  the  priests,  passed  over 
the  Jordan  with  the  army,  and  that  the  people  encamped 
and  celebrated  the  Passover.  This  encampment  took 
place  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  first  month,  in,  as  far  as  we 
know,  the  fourth  year  of  the  wandering.  Later  in  Joshua 
we  have  an  account  of  the  alliance  of  this  people  with  the 
Gibeonites,  by  which  these  Gibeonites  became  hewers 
of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  to  all  the  congregation.' 
The  latter  part  of  Joshua  describes  the  division  of  the  land 
under  the  oversight  of  Eleazar  the  priest  and  Joshua, 
son  of  Nun.  Just  as  Aaron  is  so  often  mentioned  in  the 
P  document  before  Moses,  so  now  we  find  that  Eleazar 
the  priest  seems  to  take  precedence  over  the  civil  governor. 
Then  we  are  told  that  the  whole  congregation  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  assembled  themselves  together  at  ShUoh, 
and  set  up  the  Tent  of  Meeting  there.  ^  In  an  addition 
to  the  Book  of  Joshua  we  are  informed  that  "Eleazar 
the  son  of  Aaron  died;  and  they  buried  him  in  the  hill 
of  Phinehas,  his  son,  which  was  given  him  in  the  hill- 
country  of  Ephraim.""* 

I  Num.,  chaps.  3,  4.  3  Josh.  18:1. 

a  Josh.  9:156,  17-21.  4  Josh.  24:33. 


202  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

The  Book  of  Judges  gives  us  only  a  few  traces  of  the 
institutions  of  the  P  code,  and  those  all  in  the  latter  part. 
At  the  time  of  the  war  against  the  Benjaminites  at  Gibeah, 
we  are  told,  Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  Aaron, 
stood  before  the  Ark  of  God  at  Bethel,' 

The  High-Priesthood  of  Eli 

The  first  four  chapters  of  I  Samuel  give  us  the  history 
of  Eli  and  his  two  sons,  Phinehas  and  Hophni.  This 
Hophni  is  unknown,  save  in  these  chapters. ''  Eli  also 
is  unknown  outside  of  them,  except  in  I  Sam.  14:3,  where 
Phinehas  is  again  named  as  the  son  of  Eli  the  priest,  and 
in  I  Kings  2:  27,  where  Solomon  deposed  Abiathar  and 
thereby  cut  off  the  house  of  Eli  from  being  priests.  The 
reason  for  this  deposition  was  that  they  had  greatly 
abused  the  oflEice,  and  had  thereby  provoked  the  anger  of 
Yahweh  against  the  whole  house. 

The  High- Priests 

Who  is  this  Eli  ?  The  Book  of  Chronicles  knows  noth- 
ing of  him.  We  have  three  lists  of  the  high-priests  in 
Jerusalem:  one  in  I  Chron.  6: 50-53;  another  in  I  Chron. 
6 : 3-15 ;  and  a  third  in  Ezra  7:1-5.  The  lists  by  no  means 
agree,  and  there  is  a  serious  question  as  to  whether  any 
of  them  is  worthy  of  our  entire  reliance.  But  in  none  0} 
them  does  the  name  of  Eli  appear. 

The  lists  are  as  follows: 


I  Chron. 

6: 

: 50-53 

I  Chron. 

6: 

■3- 

-15 

Ezra  7:1-5 

Aaron 

Aaron 

Aaron 

Eleazar 

Eleazar 

Eleazar 

Phinehas 

Phinehas 

Phinehas 

Abishua 

Abishua 

Abishua 

I  Judg.  20:28.     The  Greek  says  "ephod"  instead  of  "ark."     Both  agree 
that  Phinehas  was  there  in  Bethel  at  that  time. 
^'ISam.  i:^;   2:34;  4:4,  11,  17. 


THE  HIGH-PRIESTS 


203 


I  Chron.  6:50-53 

I  Chron.  6:  3-15 

Ezra  7 : 1-5 

Bukki 

Bukki 

Bukki 

Uzzi 

Uzzi 

Uzzi 

Zeraiah 

Zeraiah 

Zeraiah 

Meraioth 

Meraioth 

^Meraioth 

Amariah 

Amariah  (I) 

Ahitub 

Ahitub  (I) 

Zadok 

Zadok  (I) 

Ahimaaz 

Ahimaaz 
Azariah  (I) 
Johanan 

Azariah  (11)^ 

Azariah 

Amariah  (II) 

Amariah 

Ahitub  (II) 

Ahitub 

Zadok  (II) 

Zadok 

Shallum 

Shallum 

Hilkiah 

Hilkiah 

Azariah  (III) 

Azariah 

Seraiah 

Seraiah 

Jehozadak^ 

Ezra 

The  third  list  has  two  evident  lacunae.  Six  names  are 
lacking  betwen  Meraioth  and  Azariah  (II),  and  one 
between  Seraiah  and  Ezra.  In  this  list  Ezra  comes  next 
to  Seraiah,  whUe  in  the  second  list  Jehozadak  is  placed 
there.  Now  Jehozadak  went  into  captivty,  not  later  than 
587  B.  c,  while  Ezra  came  to  Jerusalem  at  the  end  of  the 
captivity,  458  b.  c.  There  is,  then,  in  this  place  in  the 
third  list  a  lacuna  of  ca.  130  years. 

In  the  second  list,  which  seems  to  be  the  most  complete, 
we  notice  the  repeated  recurrence  of  the  same  names. 
There  are  three  Azariahs,  two  Amariahs,  two  Ahitubs, 

I  I  Chron.  6: 10  states  that  this  Azariah  executed  the  high-priestly  office  in 
the  house  that  Solomon  built  in  Jerusalem.  But  as  his  son,  Amariah,  was  high- 
priest  in  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  ca.  870  B.  c,  this  Azariah  cannot  have  been 
identical  with  Azariah,  son  of  Zadok,  in  the  time  of  Solomon  (I  Kings  4:2). 

3  I  Chron.  6:15  remarks  that  Jehozadak  went  into  captivity  when  Yahweh 
destroyed  Jerusalem  by  the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar. 


204  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

and  two  Zadoks.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  the  cor- 
rectness of  these  names.  They  only  go  to  show  that  the 
same  names  were  often  repeated  in  a  given  family,  a  phe- 
nomenon which  we  might  expect  from  common  Semitic 
practice.'  This  fact  is  to  be  emphasized,  for  it  is  to  be 
supposed  that  in  later  times  scribes,  finding  lists  with  the 
same  names,  may  often  have  mixed  them  up,  and  identi- 
fied entirely  different  persons  merely  because  they  were 
called  alike.  We  shall  presently  revert  to  this  fact,  in 
the  case  of  the  descendants  of  Eli,  and  the  priests  in  the 
time  of  David  and  Solomon. 

But  the  name  of  Eli,  as  we  have  said,  occurs  in  none  of 
these  lists.  It  is  necessary  here  for  a  moment  to  anticipate 
the  conclusions  reached  in  the  next  chapter,  and  to  state 
that  in  our  opinion  the  evidence  in  P  conclusively  points 
to  a  date  1144-1141  b.  c,  for  the  Exodus  and  entrance 
into  Canaan  therein  described.  Now  the  priesthood  and 
judgeship  of  Eli  took  place  11 18-1079  b.  c.^  A  compari- 
son of  these  dates  shows  that  between  the  arrival  of  the 
P  migration  and  the  beginning  of  the  Eli  period  there  was 
a  period  of  only  23  short  years. 

Now  20  of  these  are  to  be  set  down,  according  to  our 
theory,  to  the  judgeship  of  Samson,  a  period  of  the  great- 
est disorder,  during  which  the  chaos  caused  by  the  entrance 
of  the  P  people,  as  well  as  the  Philistines,  was  gradually 
being  resolved  into  order.  At  the  end  of  the  period  we 
find  that  the  land  was  subdued,  and  that  the  ark  was 

'        I  Cf.  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  in  re  John  the  Baptist's  name. 

2  We  can  hardly  allot  Samuel  a  shorter  judgeship  than  twelve  years,  and  as 
he  died,  an  old  man,  in  the  time  of  Saul,  and  as  it  seems  necessary  to  give  Saul 
forty  years,  Samuel's  birth  must  have  been  at  least  seventy  years  before  Saul's 
death.  And  thus  the  dates  assigned  above  to  Eli's  priesthood  do  not  seem  at  all 
improbable. 


IDENTITY  OF  ELI  AND  ELEAZAR  205 

placed  at  Shiloh,  in  the  charge  of  Eleazar.  But  we  know 
that  Eli  was  priest,  in  charge  of  the  ark,  also  at  Shiloh. 
It  is  our  contention,  and  we  think  not  an  unreasonable 
one,  in  view  of  what  we  are  convinced  is  an  identity  of 
chronology,  that  Eli  and  Eleazar  were  one  and  the  same 
priest. 

Identity  of  Eli  and  Eleazar 

The  chief  reasons  for  this  identification,  aside  from  the 
assumed  identity  in  chronology,  are  these : 

1.  Both  Eli  and  Eleazar,  son  of  Aaron,  had  sons  by 
the  name  of  Phinehas.  This  in  itself  would  not  indicate 
an  identity  of  the  fathers,  it  is  true,  but  the  identity  becomes 
more  probable  when  we  note  that  Phinehas  is  an  Egyptian 
name."  It  hardly  seems  probable  that  an  Egyptian  name 
would  have  been  bestowed  upon  the  son  of  one  of  the 
leaders  of  a  people  who  had  been  three  hundred  years  out 
of  Egypt,  as  Eli  and  his  son  have  conventionally  been 
supposed  to  have  been.  It  is  even  more  improbable  when 
we  remember  that  Eli  was  high-priest,  and  that  Phinehas 
is  a  heathen  name.  In  the  case  of  Eleazar,  son  of  Aaron, 
these  objections  would  not  apply,  for  he  might  have  named 
the  son  Phinehas,  assuming,  as  is  perfectly  possible,  that 
the  latter  was  born  in  Egypt  before  the  Exodus  began.  If 
we  conclude  that  Eli  and  Eleazar  were  one,  all  difficulty 
in  regard  to  the  name  disappears. 

2.  Furthermore,  we  read  in  I  Sam.  2 :  27-31  that  "there 
came  a  man  of  God  unto  Eli,  and  said  unto  him,  Thus 
says  Yahweh,  Did  I  reveal  myself  unto  the  house  of  thy 
father,  when  they  were  in  Egypt,  in  bondage  in  Pharaoh's 
house  ?  And  did  I  choose  him  out  of  all  the  tribes  of 
Israel  to  be  my  priest,  to  go  up  unto  mine  altar,  to  burn 

I  I.  e.,  Pa-nekhsi,  "the  negro." 


2o6  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

incense,  to  wear  an  ephod  before  me  ?  And  did  I  give 
unto  the  house  of  thy  father  all  the  offerings  of  the  children 
of  Israel  made  by  fire  ?  .  .  .  .  Behold,  the  days  come  that 
I  will  cut  off  thine  arm,  and  the  arm  of  thy  father's  house, 
that  there  shall  not  be  any  old  man  in  thine  house."  And 
this  prophecy  was  fulfilled  in  I  Kings  2:27:  "So  Solomon 
thrust  out  Abiathar  from  being  priest  unto  Yahweh;  that 
he  might  fulfil  the  word  of  Yahweh  which  he  spake  con- 
cerning the  house  of  Eli  in  Shiloh."  Now  this  Abiathar 
was  a  great-great-grandson  of  Eli,  the  genealogy  running 
EH,  Phinehas,  Ahitub,  Ahimelech  (LXX,  Abimelech), 
Abiathar. 

As  the  text  stands  we  have  no  reason  to  reject  a  literal 
interpretation.  The  father  of  Eli  had  been  in  Egypt,  in 
bondage  to  Pharaoh,  and  had  been  chosen  by  Yahweh 
as  his  priest.  But  the  house  which  had  been  chosen  in 
Egypt  by  Yahweh  was,  as  we  know,  the  house  of  Moses 
and  Aaron.  It  was  Aaron,  the  father  of  Eleazar,  who, 
in  the  P  document,  was  chosen  to  be  Yahweh's  priest.  It 
is  only  the  P  document  which  knows  of  any  calling  in 
Egypt.  The  JED  document  knows  of  one  only  in  Horeb, 
and  in  that  it  is  Moses,  not  Aaron,  who  is  called  to  be 
priest. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  Old  Testament  the  word  ''father" 
sometimes  stands  for  what  we  would  translate  "fore- 
father." But  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  which  would 
seem  to  indicate  that  this  is  the  meaning  here. 

From  the  considerations  of  chronology,  from  the  simi- 
larity in  the  name  of  Phinehas,  and  from  the  prophecy 
against  the  house  of  Eli,  with  its  reference  to  the  father 
called  in  Egypt,  we  feel  it  safe  to  assume  that  Eli  and 
Eleazer  were  one  and  the  same  man. 


CONFUSION  OF  ELEAZAR  AND  ELIEZER  207 

The  fact  that  in  the  Hebrew  the  name  Eli  begins  with 
a  different  radical  from  that  which  stands  at  the  beginning 
of  the  name  Eleazar  can  hardly  be  taken  as  a  good  argu- 
ment against  this  identification.  We  know  that  in  the 
Galilean  and  Samaritan  dialects  all  gutturals  except  h 
were  treated  as  in  Assyrian,  i.  e.,  they  were  practically 
unpronounced.  The  difference  in  spelling  might  then  be 
explained  as  due  to  slight  dialectic  differences.  Nor  can 
there  be  any  legitimate  objection  raised  to  the  shortening 
of  the  name  from  Eleazar  to  Eli.  Such  abbreviations  are 
not  an  uncommon  thing  in  Hebrew. 

If  Eli  and  Eleazar  were  the  same,  then  we  know  that 
the  house  of  Eleazar  was  the  one  cut  off  from  the  high- 
priesthood  in  the  time  of  Solomon,  when  Abiathar  was 
deposed.  But  this  seems  to  be  contrary  to  all  the  priestly 
lists,  which  go  back  to  Phinehas,  Eleazar,  and  Aaron. 

Confusion  of  Eleazar  and  Eliezer 

Now  we  know  that  the  Moses  of  the  E  document  had 
a  son  whose  name  was  Eliezer,  and  since  he  was  the  son 
of  the  man  who  in  this  document  is  the  priest,  it  is  but 
natural  to  suppose  that  he  was  a  priest  as  well.  This 
Eliezer  had  a  brother,  Gershom,  whose  son,  Jonathan, 
became  high-priest  in  Micah's  house,  and  later  in  the 
sanctuary  of  Dan. '  We  know  that  in  the  ancient  Hebrew 
script  the  vowel  letters  were  very  seldom  written  out,  and 
in  these  old  documents  there  would  be  absolutely  no  differ- 
ence whatever  between  the  appearance  of  the  names 
Eliezer  and  Eleazar. 

A  later  tradition,  therefore,  promulgated  chiefly  by  the 
priests,  who  knew  very  well  about  Eleazar,  son  of  Aaron, 

I  Judg.  18:30. 


2o8  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

and  very  little  if  anything  about  Eliezer,  son  of  Moses, 
would  naturally  identify  the  descendants  of  these  two  men. 
It  is  our  contention  that  in  the  priestly  lists  of  the  Chronicler 
the  names  from  Abishua  down  are  not  those  of  Aaronic 
priests  descended  through  Eleazar  and  Phinehas,  but  of 
descendants  of  Moses,  priest  according  to  JED,  through 
Eliezer  and  his  descendants,  and  that  the  confusion  of  the 
two  lines  was  due  either  to  ignorance  on  the  part  of  the 
Chronicler,  or,  as  seems  more  probable,  to  a  desire  on 
the  part  of  the  later  priests  to  connect  themselves 
with  Aaron  the  high-priest,  to  whom  greater  privileges 
had  been  given  than  to  the  priesthood  of  the  JED  exodus. 
That  in  this  case  the  Chronicler  should  have  been  so 
confused  as  to  be  utterly  unreliable  is  not  improbable 
when  we  consider  how  mixed  he  is  in  other  portions  of 
his  priestly  lists.  In  fact,  in  the  later  periods  the  succes- 
sions and  genealogies  of  the  priests  and  high-priests  seem 
to  have  been  pretty  well  mixed  up  in  all  the  historians' 
minds.  Perhaps  a  portion  of  these  confusions  is  due  to 
the  mistakes,  either  wilful  or  accidental,  of  those  who 
transcribed  the  original  writings  of  such  books  as  Samuel, 
Kings,  and  Chronicles. 

Confusion  of  Ahimelech  and  Abimelech 

In  one  case,  at  least,  we  can  see  that  this  is  so,  and  even 
point  out  the  time  when  the  confusion  arose.  In  many 
cases  in  our  Samuel  and  Chronicles  we  read  of  an  Ahime- 
lech. Sometimes  he  is  the  son  of  Ahitub  and  a  descendant 
of  Eli,  and  has  a  son  by  the  name  of  Abiathar.  At  other 
times  he  is  a  son  of  Abiathar,  and  has  a  son  by  the  name 
of  Jonathan.  There  seems  at  first  glance  a  hopeless  con- 
fusion here,  and  modern  critics  have  advanced  all  sorts 


CONFUSION  OF  AHIMELECH  AND  ABIMELECH        209 

of  ingenious  guesses  to  explain  it.  But  when  we  look  at 
the  Greek  text  we  find  that  this  confusion  has  come  into 
the  Hebrew  since  the  time  that  the  LXX  was  translated. 
When  "Ahimelech"  in  the  Greek  is  spoken  of  as  the  son 
of  Ahitub,  he  is  always  called  "Abimelech."  When  the 
son  of  Abiathar  is  mentioned,  the  name  "Ahimelech"  is 
retained.  Thus  there  are  seen  to  have  been  two  men  who 
have,  since  the  translation  of  the  LXX,  become  confused 
in  our  Massoretic  text.  And  this  distinction  becomes  the 
plainer  when  we  note  that,  whenever  the  one  called  in 
Greek  Abimelech  is  mentioned  in  our  Hebrew,  the  title 
"the  priest"  is  affixed  to  the  name,  and  whenever  the  one 
called  in  Greek  Ahimelech  is  mentioned  in  the  Hebrew, 
the  tide  is  omitted. 

And  this  is  the  more  significant  when  we  remember 
that  ''Abimelech  the  priest"  is  a  descendant  of  Eli— his 
great-grandson.  As  we  have  seen,  the  title  "the  priest" 
is  a  P  title  and  reserved  for  the  high-priesthood  of  Aaron 
and  his  sons.  This  Abimelech  was  a  high-priest,  although 
he  is  not  mentioned  in  the  list  in  Chronicles.  This  seems 
to  show  that  the  high-priestly  line  of  Eli  was  left  entirely 
out  of  consideration  by  the  Chronicler. 

At  any  rate,  if  confusion  such  as  this  between  Abime- 
lech and  Ahimelech  could  arise  in  later  years  among  the 
transcribers  of  Samuel  and  Chronicles,  why  need  we  wonder 
that  the  high-priestly  lists  in  the  latter  book  should  show 
as  one  line  a  composite  of  what  were  originally  two  lines  ? 
This  hypothesis  alone  explains  the  mysteries  involved  in 
the  lists  as  they  stand. 

It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  history 
of  the  times  of  Samuel  and  Eli  which  interferes  with  the 
hypothesis  that  there  were  two  lines  of  priests  among  the 


2IO  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

Jews,  that  of  Aaron  (P)  and  that  of  Moses  (JED).  In 
fact  it  may  even  be  said  that  the  history  of  these  times 
seems  to  point  in  that  direction.  Let  us  now  pass  on  to 
the  priesthood  in  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon. 

The  Priesthoods  in  the  United  Monarchy 

Most  modern  critics  admit  that  the  division  of  the 
priesthood  into  courses  by  David,  as  recorded  in  I  Chron., 
chaps.  23,  24,  is  a  correct  bit  of  history.  For  not  only  is 
this  division  attested  by  Josephus,  but  by  both  Ezekiel 
and  Nehemiah,  who  each  bear  witness  to  a  pre-exilic 
division.' 

David  divided  the  priests  as  follows: 

THE  SONS  OF  ELEAZAR  (  ?)  THE  SONS  OF  ITHAMAR 

16  courses  8  courses 

Over  each  course  a  "prince  of  the  Over   each    course    a    "prince    of 

sanctuary."  Elohim." 

Over  these  princes  a  superior  priest,  Over  these  princes  a  superior  priest, 

Zadok.  Ahimelech. 

Over  all  these  priests  we  must  conclude  that  there  was 
appointed  by  David  a  supreme  high-priest,  Abiathar,  son 
of  Abimelech.'  It  is  true  that  in  the  account  of  the 
division  the  Chronicler  makes  no  mention  of  such  a  high- 
priest;  and  consequently  most  critics  have  assumed  that 
Zadok  and  Ahimelech  were  co-ordinately  high-priests  at 
this  time.  But  this  seems  highly  improbable  in  view  of 
what  happened  when  Solomon  came  to  the  throne.  One 
of  the  first  things  that  he  did  was  to  depose  from  the  high- 
priesthood  Abiathar  son  of  Abimelech^  (who,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  the  great-grandson  of  Eli).     It  was  at  this  point 

I  Neh.  12:1-7,  12-21. 

*  Thus  the  name  in  the  GreeL 

3  I  Kings  2 :  26. 


THE  PRIESTHOODS  IN  THE  UNITED  MONARCHY    211 

that  Zadok  was  raised  to  the  high-priesthood,  in  Abiathar's 
place.  Even  the  Chronicler  seems  to  imply  that  this  was 
the  case,  for  he  says  that  at  the  time  Solomon  was  anointed 
to  be  king  Zadok  was  anointed  priest.  This  certainly 
means  that  he  became  priest  at  this  time  in  a  sense 
that  he  had  not  been  before,  i.  e.,  that  he  became 
high-priest.  Moreover,  the  Chronicler  knows  of  only 
one  high-priestly  line.  If  he  meant  to  imply  that  in 
David's  time  both  Zadok  and  Ahimelech  were  high- 
priests,  why  did  he  not  include  them  both  in  his  high- 
priestly  lists? 

In  view  of  all  these  circumstances,  it  is  our  belief  that 
the  two  lines  of  priests  systematized  by  David  were  by 
him  made  subject  to  the  high-priestly  line  of  Eli  or 
Eleazar,  and  that  this  state  of  things  lasted  until  this 
line  was  abolished  by  Solomon,  and  the  line  represented 
by  Zadok  advanced  to  the  high-priesthood  in  its 
stead. 

If  this  be  the  case,  we  must  suppose  that  when  the 
Chronicler  calls  the  line  of  which  Zadok  was  the  head 
"the  sons  of  Eleazar,"  he  has  again  merely  fallen  victim 
to  his  usual  false  identification  of  Eleazar  and  Eliezer,  son 
of  Moses,  and  that  the  line  was  properly  called  "the 
sons  of  Eliezer."  In  other  words,  we  are  convinced  that 
this  line  of  Zadokite  priests,  advanced  by  Solomon  to  the 
high- priesthood,  was  not  of  Aaronic  descent  at  all,  hut  was 
of  the  Mosaic  priesthood  of  JED. 

We  then  conclude  that  under  David's  arrangement  of 
priests  the  Mosaic  line — that  of  Eliezer — and  the  younger 
branch  of  the  Aaronic  line — that  of  Ithamar — were  both 
placed  in  subjection  to  the  elder  Aaronic  line — the  house 
of  Eli  or  Eleazar. 


212 


THE  PRIESTHOODS 


Our  investigations  have  led  us  to  suggest  the  following 
genealogies  of  priests  as  probable: 


II 


Moses 

Eliezer 

(several  generations  probably) 

Abishua 

Bukki 

Uzzi 

Zeraiah 

Aaron 

(high-priests) 

Eli  (Eleazar) 

(high-priest) 
Ithamar 

Amariah 

Phinehas 

? 

rthen;) 

Ahitub 

Zadok  (high-priest) 

Ahimaaz  (high-priest) 

Azariah  (high-priest) 

and  so  forth,  as  in  the  Chronicler's 

Ahitub 

Abimelech 

Abiathar 

? 
Abiathar 
Ahimelech 
Abiathar 
Jonathan 

high-priestly  list.' 

But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  should  David  have  united 
these  various  lines  of  priests  ?  The  answer  is  to  be  found 
by  a  consideration  of  the  circumstances  involved  in  the 
history  of  the  beginning  of  the  monarchy. 

We  know  that  the  home  of  King  Saul  was  at  Gibeah 
or  Gibeon,  and  that  both  of  these  were  Levitical  cities. 
In  this  city  was  located,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Tabernacle  of 
the  Testimony  and  the  altar  that  Moses  and  Bezalel  made 
at  Sinai,  both  of  them  P  institutions,  and  therefore  con- 

I  The  only  objection  which  could  possibly  be  raised  to  the  intrinsic  proba- 
bility of  this  arrangement  is  the  similarity  in  names  in  the  different  lines  of  priests. 
But  of  course  we  must  remember  that,  so  far  as  the  two  Aaronic  lines  are  con- 
cerned, similarities  in  names  are  only  natural.  We  know  of  many  families  where 
certain  names  were  regarded  as  peculiarly  the  favorites  of  the  whole  clan. 
Between  the  Aaronic  priesthoods  and  that  of  Moses  there  is  only  one  likeness  in 
names.  There  is  an  Ahitub  present  in  each.  But  Ahitub  we  know  to  have  been^ 
a  common  priestly  name.  There  is  a  high-priest  of  that  name,  for  instance, 
much  farther  down  in  the  Chronicler's  list.  The  names  of  the  various  lines 
should  cause  no  difficulty. 


THE  PRIESTHOODS  IN  THE  UNITED  MONARCHY    213 

nected  with  the  Aaronic  priesthood.  On  this  account  we 
should  expect  that  Saul  was  an  adherent  by  residence  and 
inheritance  of  the  P  code  and  its  institutions.  We  have 
shown  above  that  in  regard  to  the  witches  and  other 
matters  it  was  the  P  code  which  he  carried  out. 

There  came  a  breach  between  Saul  and  David,  and 
the  latter  fled.  It  is  probable  that,  if  there  were  any  other 
priesdy  line  than  that  of  P,  it  would,  not  being  in  the  favor 
of  the  court,  ally  itself  with  those  opposing  the  reigning 
king.  It  is  only  natural,  then,  that  we  should  find  among 
David's  adherents,  while  yet  he  was  a  freebooter  and 
pretender  to  the  throne,  the  priesthood  which  was  headed 
by  Zadok.  This  priesthood  would  probably  have  become 
the  sole  favorite  of  David,  had  it  not  been  for  an  event 
which  complicated  matters.  Saul,  in  rage  against  the 
Eli  line,  which  had  aided  the  fleeing  David  with  some 
shew-breads,  caused  Abimelech,  the  high-priest  in  that 
line,  to  be  killed.  His  son  Abiathar  saved  his  own  life 
only  by  precipitate  flight  to  David,  with  whom  he 
proceeded  to  make  common  cause.  Thus  David  had 
two  priesthoods  on  his  hands. 

When  at  length  Saul  was  overthrown  and  David  had 
been  king  for  seven  years,  the  latter  succeeded  in  capturing 
Jerusalem,  and  thus  in  pacifying  his  entire  kingdom.  In 
order  that  this  peaceful  state  of  things  might  be  made  more 
secure  it  was  necessary  that  he  conciliate  the  various 
factions  of  his  people.  With  all  ancient  peoples  religious 
union  or  faction  has  had  a  large  influence  upon  political 
union  or  faction.  David,  recognizing  this,  proceeded  to 
unify  the  religious  life  of  the  people.  To  do  this  it  was 
necessary  to  recognize  in  some  fashion  all  the  different 
lines  of  Levitical  priests  that  there  were.     He  found  the 


214  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

Eliezer  line,  from  Moses,  and  two  Aaronic  lines,  that  of 
Ithamar  and  that  of  Eli.  He  found,  moreover,  that  the 
last  named  had  always  advanced  the  claim  of  being  sole 
high-priests.  He  acknowledged  the  integrity  of  each  of 
the  three  lines,  and  persuaded  the  Eliezer  line  and  the 
Ithamar  line  to  acknowledge  a  nominal  precedence  to 
the  Eli  or  Eleazar  line.  In  the  light  of  our  records  of 
those  times,  this  seems  plainly  to  have  been  the  course  of 
events. 

The  amalgamation  of  the  priesthoods  was  made  still 
more  close  in  the  time  of  Solomon  by  the  deposition  of 
Abiathar  and  his,  the  Eli  line,  and  the  advancement  of 
the  Zadokite  line  to  the  high-priestly  position,  a  move  far 
more  easy  than  it  would  have  been  in  the  time  of  David 
because  of  the  greatly  increased  strength  of  the  monarchy. 

All  of  this,  of  course,  had  become  confused  in  the  time 
of  the  Chronicler,  and  he  remained  under  the  impression 
that  the  line  raised  to  high-priesthood  in  Solomon's  day 
was  the  original  Aaronic  line  of  high-priests.  Conse- 
quently he  took  it  that  Eliezer,  the  ancestor  of  the  high- 
priests  of  his  day,  was  the  same  as  the  Eleazar,  who  was 
son  of  Aaron  and  really  the  ancestor  of  the  line  deposed 
by  Solomon.     The  mistake  seems  natural  and  easy. 

The  Priesthoods  in  Judah  and  Israel 

Let  US  now  consider  the  history  of  the  priesthood  after 
the  death  of  Solomon.  In  this  consideration  it  is  impor- 
tant that  there  be  borne  in  mind  the  distinction  that  exists 
between  "the  priests  the  Levites,"  which  is  the  D  way  of 
designating  its  priests,  and  "the  priests  and  the  Levites,'' 
which  is  the  P  way  of  pointing  out  those  in  charge  of  the 
services.     It  is  further  to  be  considered  that  these  terms 


THE  PRIESTHOODS  IN  JUDAH  AND  ISRAEL  215 

were  simultaneous,  and  that  the  one  did  not  succeed  the 
other. 

At  the  disruption  of  the  kingdom  Jeroboam  I,  in  the 
north,  established  religion  on  the  basis  of  the  E  code,  as 
we  have  noticed,  adding  thereto  certain  innovations. 
The  fact  that  any  man  could  become  a  priest  in  the  north 
left  the  Aaronic  priesthood  there  in  a  very  gloomy  state. 
Consequently  we  find  that  "the  priests  and  the  Levites," 
i.  e.,  the  P  or  Aaronic  priests,  left  there  and  settled  in 
Judah,  under  King  Rehoboam. ' 

But  Rehoboam  and  his  kingdom  fell  practically  into 
idolatry.'  His  son,  Abijah,  followed  in  his  footsteps. 
The  priesthoods  naturally  suffered. 

In  the  time  of  Asa  we  perceive  a  religious  awakening 
in  Judah,  and  we  find  that  Asa  made  a  covenant  with  the 
people  on  the  basis  of  the  P  code.  ^  His  son,  Jehoshaphat, 
continued  his  policy  with  even  greater  zeal  for  Yahweh 
and  for  the  P  code.^  The  Aaronic  priesthood  was  thus 
at  this  time  entirely  in  the  ascendancy  in  Judah,  and  it  is 
to  be  assumed  that  the  high-priests,  being  politic,  supported 
this  trend  of  things,  even  though  they  themselves  were  not 
of  Aaronic  descent.  Anyone  who  carefully  compares  the 
P  and  D  codes  realizes  how  much  the  former  is  the  inferior 
in  spirituality.  It  is  largely  ceremonial  in  character. 
Consequently,  when  we  consider  how  weak  in  spiritual 
vigor  a  religion  based  solely  on  ceremonial  is,  it  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at  that  the  religion  of  these  times  in  Judah 
was  a  demoralizing  and  deteriorating  one.     No  wonder, 

1  II  Chron.  11:13,  14;  i3'-9- 

2  II  Chron.  12:1;   I  Kings  14:21-24. 

3  II  Chron.  15:12-15;  I  Kings  15:11-15. 
♦  II  Chron.  17:6-10;   19:4,  8. 


2i6  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

then,  that  soon  after  this  we  find  King  Jehoram,  and  the 
people  with  him,  turning  away  from  Yahweh,  as  is  related 
in  II  Chron,  21:6. 

This  apostasy  continued  down  to  the  reign  of  Athalia 
and  Joash.  The  overthrow  of  Athalia  was  entirely 
planned  by  a  priest,  Jehoiada.  It  would  seem  that  this 
man  was  not  a  high-priest,  for  his  name  is  lacking  in  the 
high-priestly  lists,  nor  is  he  so  called  in  our  records.  His 
royal  funeral  may  point,  though,  to  his  having  been  a  high- 
priest,  and  if  so,  then  in  this  place,  too,  the  Chronicler's 
lists  are  incomplete.  At  any  rate,  his  reforms  were  based 
on  the  Law  of  Moses,  or  D,  and  not  on  P.' 

And  now  begins  a  period  of  spiritual  awakening  which 
extends  down  to  the  time  of  Amaziah,  during  which  we 
can  trace  continually  the  influence  of  the  D  code.  After 
the  death  of  Amaziah,  the  Aaronic  priesthood  with  its  P 
code  again  resumed  the  ascendency,  and  irregularities 
became  noticeable.  King  Uzziah  undertook  to  enter  the 
temple  himself  to  offer  incense.  He  was  withstood  and 
defied  by  the  high-priest  Azariah  (III),  who  appealed  to 
the  law,  which,  in  this  case,  could  have  been  only  the  P 
code.^ 

In  the  time  of  Ahaz,  grandson  of  Uzziah,  the  religion  of 
Judah  was  at  such  a  low  ebb  that  Ahaz  even  closed  the 
temple  and  built  a  heathen  altar,  copied  after  one  in 
Damascus,  where  he  sacrificed.  The  Chronicler  himself 
attributes  this  to  the  low  state  of  the  priests.  He  means 
the  Aaronic  priests,  for  immediately  afterward  he  calls 
them  "the  priests  and  Levites."^ 

1  II  Kings  11:4  £f.,  16;   II  Chron.  23:1  ff.,  17. 

2  II  Chron.  26:16-20. 

3  II  Chron.  29:34;  30:15. 


THE  PRIESTHOODS  IN  JUDAH  AND  ISRAEL  217 

Seeing  the  dangers  besetting  his  kingdom,  and  attribut- 
ing the  same  to  the  religious  lethargy  on  the  part  of  his 
people,  and  guided  by  such  men  as  Isaiah,  King  Hezekiah, 
Ahaz'  successor,  started  a  religious  reform.  He  repaired 
and  reopened  the  temple,  and  invited  the  people  both  from 
the  north  and  from  his  own  kingdom  to  celebrate  the 
Passover  in  Jerusalem  in  the  second  month.  His  zeal  for 
D  institutions  is  evident  everjrwhere.  At  this  opening 
celebration  the  P  priests  were  considered  so  far  inferior 
and  so  degraded  that  they  were  not  permitted  even  to  take 
part  in  it  until  they  had  sanctified  themselves,  for  they 
"were  ashamed.'"  These  Levites  must,  then,  have  been 
a  portion  of  the  D  priesthood.  The  reason  why  "the 
priests  and  the  Levites"  were  thus  humiliated  can  only 
have  been  because  they  had  been  serving  at  the  heathen 
altars  which  Hezekiah  had  just  caused  to  be  overthrown.  ^ 
At  this  celebration,  then,  the  priesthoods  were  again 
temporarily  united,  and  the  Aaronic  priests,  who  had 
become  apostates,  were  forgiven.  This  we  know,  for 
we  read  that,  during  the  service,  "the  priests  and  the 
Levites"  rejoiced  that  they  had  been  healed,  while  at  the 
same  time  "the  priests  the  Levites"  took  their  part  too, 
rising  and  blessing  the  people  in  a  manner  acceptable  to 
Yahweh.^ 

The  next  important  reign  is  that  of  Josiah,  Hezekiah's 
great-grandson.  The  impulse  of  his  reform  was  the 
rediscovery  of  the  D  code  in  the  temple,  although  some 
of  the  reforms  were,  it  is  true,  based  on  P.  This  was 
in  621. 

1  II  Chron.  30:15-17. 

2  II  Chron.  30:14. 

3  II  Chron.  30:18-20,  22,  25,  27. 


2l8  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

Ezekiel's  Proposed  Reform 

In  598,  Ezekiel  was  carried  away  into  captivity  in 
Babylonia,  and  in  585  he  began  to  write  his  book  of  prophe- 
cies. In  this  book  there  are  four  passages  which  have 
a  bearing  on  the  question  of  the  priesthood. 

1.  "Thou  shah  give  to  the  priests  the  Levites  that  be  of 
the  seed  of  Zadok,  which  are  near  unto  me,  to  minister 
unto  me,  says  the  Lord  God,  a  young  bullock  for  a  sin- 
offering.'" 

2.  "But  the  priests  the  Levites,  the  sons  of  Zadok,  that 
kept  the  charge  of  my  sanctuary  when  the  children  of 
Israel  went  astray  from  me,  they  shall  come  near  unto  me 
to  minister  unto  me ;  and  they  shall  stand  before  me  to  offer 
unto  me  the  fat  and  the  blood,  says  the  Lord  God:  they 
shall  enter  into  my  sanctuary,  and  they  shall  come  in  unto 
my  table,  to  minister  unto  me,  and  they  shall  keep  my 
charge."^ 

3.  "But  the  Levites  that  went  far  from  me  when  Israel 
went  astray,  which  went  astray  from  me  after  their  idols, 
they  shall  bear  their  iniquity.  Yet  they  shall  be  ministers 
in  my  sanctuary,  having  oversight  at  the  gates  of  the  house, 
and  ministering  in  the  house.  They  shall  slay  the  burnt- 
offering  and  the  sacrifice  for  the  people,  and  they  shall 

stand   before   them   to   minister  unto   them But 

they  shall  not  come  near  unto  me,  to  exercise  the  ol!ice  of 
priest  unto  me,  nor  to  come  near  to  any  of  my  holy  things, 
unto  the  things  that  are  most  holy,  but  they  shall  bear 
their  shame,  and  their  abomination,  which  they  have 
committed."^ 

4.  "It  shall  be  for  the  priests  that  are  sanctified  of 
the  sons  of  Zadok,  which  have  kept  my  charge,  which 

■  Ezek.  43:19.  "  Ezek.  44:15. 

3  Ezek.  44:10,  II,  13. 


THE  PRIESTHOOD  IN  THE  TIME  OF  EZRA  219 

went  not  astray  when  the  children  of  Israel  went  astray 
as  the  Levites  went  astray."' 

Modern  criticism  is  wont  to  explain  these  passages  by 
saying  that  Ezekiel  here  tells  of  the  degradation  of  certain 
of  the  priests  because  they  had  been  idolatrous.  In  this 
we  are  willing  to  concur,  with  the  further  statement  that 
the  priests  who  were  to  be  degraded  were  probably  of  that 
line  who  had  been  so  shamefully  lax  in  their  duties  in 
Judah  during  the  various  apostasies  of  that  people,  namely 
the  P  priesthood.  It  will  be  remembered  that  when 
David  divided  the  courses  he  had  two  sets  of  them,  one 
headed  by  Zadok,  the  other  by  Ahimelech.  The  former, 
we  saw,  were  of  JED  origin,  the  latter  of  P  origin.  And  in 
the  former,  the  line  of  Zadok,  was  vested  the  high-priest- 
hood after  Solomon's  deposition  of  the  line  of  Eli.  Now 
all  that  Ezekiel  desired  was  the  continuance  of  this  Zadok- 
ite  line,  which  had  proved  faithful,  and  the  rejection 
of  the  line  of  Ahimelech,  which  was  Aaronic,  and  which 
had  apostatized.  It  was  the  prophet's  desire  that  what 
priests  there  were  of  that  line  should  be  degraded  to  the 
condition  of  the  greater  number  of  the  Levitical  tribe, 
i.  e.,  that  they  should  become  what  we  call  technically, 
"Levites,"  or  temple  servants. 

One  more  thing  it  is  necessary  to  note  in  regard  to 
these  words  of  Ezekiel,  i.  e.,  that  whatever  is  written  in 
his  prophecies  in  this  regard  cannot  be  looked  on  as  records 
of  historical  fact,  but  only  as  expression  of  his  desires.  We 
have  nothing  to  show  that  the  thing  he  advocated  was  ever 
carried  out. 

The  Priesthood  in  the  Time  of  Ezra 

The  next  period  to  receive  attention  is  that  of  the  return 
from  exile.     In  537  b.  c.  there  returned  42,000  people. 

I  Ezek.  48:11. 


220  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

Of  these  4,289  were  priests,  or,  practically,  one  out  of 
every  ten.  But  there  were  in  this  band  only  74  Levites 
who  were  not  priests!'  These  4,289  priests  belonged 
to  only  4  of  the  Levitical  families.  The  number  of  these 
families  was  increased  in  the  high-priesthoods  of  Jeshua 
and  Joiakim  to  22  families.  Ezra  brought  2  more  families 
with  him,  one  of  the  line  of  Eleazar  (?),  the  other  of  the 
line  of  Ithamar.^  He  succeeded  by  direct  entreaty  in 
persuading  38  other  Levites  to  accompany  him.^  We 
have  then  112  Levites  not  priests  in  Jerusalem.  In  the 
time  of  Nehemiah  there  sojourned  in  the  city  1,192  priests, 
but  only  284  Levites  and  singers.  The  rest  of  the  priests 
who  had  come  from  Babylon,  of  course,  were  resident 
outside  the  city  proper.  The  Levites,  though,  had,  all 
of  them,  to  live  in  the  city  in  order  to  care  for  the  temple. 
How  are  we  to  account  for  this  large  number  of  priests 
and  this  small  number  of  non-priestly  Levites  ?  To  our 
knowledge  no  one  has  advanced  any  adequate  explanation 
of  this  remarkable  situation.  We  venture,  therefore,  to 
advance  ours,  that  the  greater  number  of  priests  in  Jeru- 
salem and  vicinity  at  this  time  were  not  P  priests  at  all, 
i.  e.,  were  not  of  the  Aaronic  line,  but  were  descendants  of 
"the  priests  the  Levites"  of  the  Zadokite  line,  i.  e.,  were 
priests  of  the  JED  code,  which  had  no  provisions  for  non- 
priestly  Levites.  During  this  whole  chapter  we  have  seen 
that  there  never  was  any  reason  to  suppose  that  the  Aaronic 
priests  and  the  Aaronic  "Levites"  were  existent  in  any 
great  numbers. 

Summary 

In  this  chapter  we  first  of  all  examined  the  accounts 
in  the  Hexateuch  of  the  institution  of  the  priesthood,  as 

I  Ezra  2:40;   Neh.  7:43.  2  Ezra  8:2.  3  Ezra  8:15-19. 


SUMMARY  221 

contained  in  the  various  documents.  We  found  that  there 
are  apparent  two  distinct  priesthoods,  one,  called  "the 
priests  the  Levites,"  in  the  E  and  D  documents,  the  other, 
called  "the  priests  and  the  Levites,"  in  the  P  document. 
We  then  concluded  that  possibly  there  may  have  been 
two  institutions  of  the  priesthood,  and  not  one.  We  then 
took  this  hypothesis  and  tested  it  in  the  light  of  the  later 
history  of  the  Hebrew  people.  We  examined  the  history 
of  the  priesthood  from  the  end  of  the  Exodus  to  the  return 
from  Babylon.  We  considered  the  records  of:  (a)  the 
time  of  the  Judges;  (b)  the  period  of  Eli  and  Samuel; 
(c)  the  reigns  of  David  and  Solomon;  (d)  the  period  of 
the  later  monarchy  from  Solomon  to  Josiah ;  (e)  the  period 
of  the  Exile,  as  illustrated  by  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel; 
and  finally  (/)  the  return  from  Babylon.  In  every 
one  of  these  periods  we  found  that  the  evidence  was 
in  favor  of  the  hypothesis  of  the  double  priesthood,  and 
that  the  distinction  seemed  to  be  plainly  recognizable 
between  "the  priests  the  Levites"  and  "the  priests  and 
the  Levites."'     In  view  of  all  these  facts,  we  venture  to 

I  In  connection  with  the  question  of  the  priesthoods  should  be  mentioned 
the  question  of  the  ephods. 

In  Exod.  28:4  f.,  a  P  passage,  God  commanded  Moses  to  make  holy  gar- 
ments for  Aaron  and  his  sons.  Among  these  was  the  ephod,  a  distinctive  mark 
of  the  high-priesthood,  or  at  least  of  the  chief  officer  of  a  temple.  This  ephod  was 
to  be  made  of  gold,  blue,  purple,  scarlet,  and  fine  twined  linen  (Exod.  28:6). 
From  Exod.,  chap.  39,  we  learn  that  Moses  carried  out  this  command,  and  from 
Lev.  8:7  we  find  that  when  Aaron  was  consecrated  high-priest  he  was  clothed 
with  this  ephod.  At  a  later  time  we  find  this  ephod  worn  by  the  high-priesthood, 
and  referred  to  simply  as  "the  ephod."  Thus  Ahimelech  had  such  an  ephod, 
and  so  did  Abiathar  (I  Sam.  21:9;   23:6-9). 

Besides  this  ephod  we  find  another  mentioned,  called  "the  linen  ephod." 
Samuel,  for  instance,  was  girded  in  such  an  ephod  (I  Sam.  2:18).  When  the 
Ark  of  the  Covenant  was  brought  up  from  the  house  of  Obed-Edom  to  Jerusalem, 
David  was  robed  in  one  of  these  linen  ephods  (II  Sam.  6: 14;  cf.  I  Chron.  15 :  27). 
This  latter  circumstance  connects  the  linen  ephod  directly  with  the  worship  of 


222  THE  PRIESTHOODS 

present  as  our  conclusion  that  the  hypothesis  of  a  double 
exodus,  elsewhere  so  strongly  suggested,  gains  an  emphatic 
indorsement  from  the  history  of  the  development  of  the 
priesthoods. 

the  Ark  of  the  Covenant,  which  belongs  to  JED.  The  seventy-five  priests  of 
Nob,  slain  by  Saul,  were  also  robed  in  linen  ephods,  if  we  are  to  trust  the  Hebrew 
text.     The  Greek  reads  simply  "ephods"  (I  Sam.  22:18). 

A  third  kind  of  ephod  seems  to  have  been  made  by  Gideon  and  Micah 
(Judg.  8:27;  17:5;  18:14-20).  These  were  of  gold,  and  seemingly  differed 
from  the  other  two  kinds  of  ephods.  Were  these  the  ephods  of  the  missing 
"statutes"  of  E  ? 

With  the  ephod  went  the  Urim  and  Thummim  stones.  These  determined 
by  lot  what  was  the  divine  will,  and  they  seem  to  have  been  used  by  the  chief 
priest  in  each  temple  (Num.  27:21;  Deut.33:8;  ISam.  28:6;  Ezra  2:63;  Neh. 
7 :  65).     It  is  probable,  too,  that  the  Urim  and  Thummim  were  used  in  Judg.  i :  i. 

The  breastplate  described  in  Exod.  28:  29  seems  to  have  belonged  exclusively 
to  the  Aaronic  priesthood  (cf.  Lev.  8:8). 


CHAPTER  XXI 
The  Dates  of  the  Exodi 

In  treating  of  the  dates  of  the  exodi,  we  need  great  care 
in  dividing  the  text.  We  have  already  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  J  and  E  cover  the  same  history,  and  that 
D,  written  forty  years  after  them,  treats  of  the  same 
series  of  events.  To  this  same  period  undoubtedly  belong 
those  early  P  records  which  we  call  the  Toledoth  Book. 
The  testimony  of  all  of  these  documents  enables  us  to 
determine  the  date  of  the  Exodus  according  to  JED. 

The  P  document  proper  stands  by  itself.  Those  sec- 
tions commonly  ascribed  to  J  and  E  which  agree  with  P 
in  everything  except  the  use  of  the  divine  name,  which 
critics  are  growing  more  and  more  inclined  to  regard  as 
an  uncertain  criterion,  will  be  treated  together  with  P  in 
determining  the  date  according  to  that  document. 

We  will  take  up,  first  of  all,  the  P  document  and  its 
chronological  testimony. 

A.     The  Date  According  to  P 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  people  in  this  docu- 
ment could  not  have  come  into  Egypt  until  there  was  a 
land  of  Raamses.  We  have  seen  that  the  city-land  known 
by  this  name  is  not  known  before  the  time  of  Ramses  II, 
who  reclaimed  it  from  the  swamps  and  gained  it  for  cul- 
tivation. He  reigned  from  1310  to  1244  B.C.'  We 
know  that  the  city  of  Raamses  was  in  existence  in  his 
twenty-first  year,  because  he  then  received  the  Hittite 

^  See  Appendix  II  for  the  chronology  of  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty 

223 


224  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

ambassadors  there.  We  have,  then,  in  his  reign  a  definite 
terminus  a  quo  for  the  settlement  of  the  Hebrews  in  Egypt. 

Even  if  the  settlement  was  in  the  reign  of  Ramses  II, 
the  Oppression,  too,  could  not  have  been  in  his  reign,  for 
it  is  intrinsically  improbable  that  a  Pharaoh  should,  with- 
out apparent  reason,  change  his  attitude  from  extreme 
favor  toward  the  Hebrews  to  extreme  opposition  and 
oppression.  The  common  critical  opinion  that  Ramses 
II  was  the  Pharaoh  of  the  Oppression  is  one  that  seems 
impossible  to  hold. 

Although  we  may  admit  that  Joseph  came  to  Egypt 
in  the  reign  of  Ramses  II,  it  is  our  belief  that  probability 
points  to  the  reign  of  his  successor,  Merneptah,  as  the 
time  when  the  settlement  proper  was  made.  There  are 
several  lines  of  circumstantial  evidence  which  seem  to 
point  that  way. 

We  have  in  Egyptian  a  story,  known  as  "The  Tale  of 
the  Two  Brothers."  It  is  written  on  the  Papyrus  Orbiney, 
which  belongs  to  the  time  of  Seti  II,  last  king  of  the  Nine- 
teenth Dynasty,  when  he  was  still  crown-prince.  It  has 
often  been  observed  that  this  story  of  Anpu  and  Bata 
shows  remarkable  similarity  to  the  story  of  Joseph,  when 
he  was  tempted  by  his  master's  wife.  What  could  have 
been  more  natural,  if,  indeed,  the  elevation  of  Joseph 
had  taken  place  only  some  thirty  years  before  the  story 
was  written  ? 

Now  we  know  that  in  the  time  of  Merneptah  there 
were  settlements  from  southern  Palestine  made  in  Egypt, 
and  that  these  were  being  made  because  of  lack  of  food 
in  the  land  whence  the  people  came.  Papyrus  Anastasi 
VI,  pi.  IV,  1.  13,  to  pi.  V,  1.  4,  is  a  letter  or  report  from  a 
frontier  official  at  the  fortress  of  Merneptah-Hotephirma 


5 

H 

w 
^; 
Pi 
w 

<;  ^ 

fin     ^ 


o 

h 
Pi 
O 

Ph 
M 
Pi 


an 


'   \ 


T^  'Hi    k^ 


r 


^"^^ 


r 


^ 


J  4i 


sr 


s= 


U 

I 

< 

K 

z 

Pi 


^  = 

w  > 

O  pt 

H  r. 

hJ  > 

I— (  ij 

o 

•^  I 

o 

fa 


o 

o 

w 
Pi 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  P  227 

in  Succoth,  and  reads  as  follows:  "Another  matter  for 
the  satisfaction  of  my  lord's  heart:  We  have  finished 
passing  the  tribes  of  the  Shasu  of  Edom  through  the 
fortress  of  Merneptah-Hotephirma  in  Succoth,  to  the 
pools  of  Pithom,  of  Merneptah-Hotephirma  in  Succoth, 
in  order  to  sustain  them  and  their  herds  in  the  domain  of 

Pharaoh,   the  good   Sun  of  every  land I  have 

caused  them  to  be  brought Other  names  of  days 

when  the  fortress  of  Merneptah-Hotephirma  was  passed. 
.  .  .  ."  In  the  P  document  Jacob  and  his  sons  come  from 
Hebron,  a  land  on  the  border  of  Edom,  from  which  these 
people  in  the  inscription  are  said  to  have  come.  The 
Egyptian  name  "Shasu"  refers  to  the  people  of  southern 
Palestine,  including  Edom.  The  word  "to  sustain" 
indicates  that  they  were  suffering  from  famine.  There 
was  then  a  famine  in  Palestine  in  Merneptah's  reign,'  and 
a  people  from  southern  Palestine  settling  because  of  it 
in  Egypt. 

After  Merneptah  there  were  three  short  reigns,  totaling 
twenty-three  years,  or  thereabouts,  and  then  a  period  of 
what  Ramses  III  calls  "anarchy."  Probably  this 
"anarchy"  began  before  the  twenty-three  years  mentioned 
were  over.  According  to  the  Osarsiph  story,  as  given  by 
Josephus,  who  quotes  from  Manetho,  the  disturbance 
started  in  the  reign  of  Amenophis  (Amenmeses),  under 
the  leadership  of  one  Osarsiph.  This  latter  became  the 
ruler  of  a  "polluted  people,"  called  "lepers"  by  Manetho, 
and  he  got  assistance  from  people  who  were  his  kindred 
and  who  lived  in  or  about  Jerusalem.  If  this  revolt  were 
put  down  by  the  Pharaohs  who  succeeded  the  period, 

I  For  the  evidence  of  a  famine  in  Palestine,  yea  in  Israel,  at  this  very- 
time  in  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Merneptah,  see  illustration  on  next  page. 


1 1**' 


'^ 


w 


^ 


^     .N  '"^  <U 

*     S  .?  ^ 

■^   o  to  •§ 

■^  '~'  -o 


g    -2     8    "§ 


I 


8    '« 


•^     8 


■«k< 


i  ^"§-2 

Q    ^    ^    ■** 


.^    'a  ,^  LS 


to    o 


'^ 


fe 


■»     8 


to 

^     8 
1^    S?^ 


-8 


8 


#11 


% 


1^-i 


0<    8 

.S  ^ 


G     o     ^ 


>H       ^ 


s 


\J^ 


fe  -2  .^ 


•S      r^        tie 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  P  229 

namely  Nakht-set,  who  reigned  one  year,  and  his  son 
Ramses  III,  there  would  be  every  excuse  for  treating  the 
revolters  as  a  subdued  people  and  inaugurating  an 
oppression. 

This  anarchy,  and  his  putting  it  down,  are  attested  by 
Ramses  III  himself,  in  his  great  Papyrus  Harris.'  The 
quotation  follows: 

"Said  King  Usermare-Meriamon  (Ramses  III),  the 
great  God,  to  the  princes  and  leaders  of  the  land,  the  infan- 
try and  chariotry,  the  Sardinians,  the  numerous  archers, 
and  all  those  living  in  the  land  of  Egypt: 

"Let  us  hear,  when  I  am  informing  you  of  my  bene- 
faction, which  I  did  while  I  was  king  of  the  people.  The 
land  of  Egypt  was  overthrown  from  without,  and  everyone 
was  deprived  of  his  rights ;  formerly  they  had  no  superior 
for  many  years,  until  other  times  (came).  The  land  of 
Egypt  was  in  the  hands  of  chiefs  and  town  rulers;  one 
slew  the  other,  both  great  and  small.  Other  times  came 
after  it,  with  empty  years,  and  Osir-siw'  (Osarsiph),  a 
certain  man  from  Kharu,^  was  chief  among  them.  He 
placed  the  whole  land  under  tribute  to  him;  he  united 
together  his  companions,  and  plundered  their  (the  Egyp- 
tians') possessions.  They  made  the  gods  like  men,  and  no 
offerings  were  presented  in  the  temple. 

"Then  the  gods  inclined  themselves  to  peace,  and 
gave  the  land  its  right,  according  to  its  accustomed  man- 
ner; they  established  their  son,  who  came  forth  from  their 
limbs,  to  be  ruler  of  all  the  land,  upon  their  great  throne: 

1  Papyrus  Harris,  PI.  LXXV,  1.  i  to  PI.  LXXVI,  1.  6. 

2  Breasted,  ARE,  Vol.  IV,  p.  199,  reads  yarsu;  but  see  Toffteen,  Ancient 
Chronology,  Part  I,  p.  208. 

3  The  Horite  land. 


•((   3 


IJ   I  fi  t   2 
hJ  i  -i  ^   I 

""      I  j 

1 1 1  f  I  J 


1'  I 


? 

4  J: 

•I)  B 

''.f  *l  i 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  P  231 

(namely)  Userkare-Setepnere-Meriamon,  son  of  Re,Nakht- 
set-Mererre-Meriamon.  He  was  Khepri-Set,  when  he  is 
enraged.  He  set  in  order  the  entire  land,  which  had  been 
rebellious;  he  slew  the  rebels  who  were  in  the  land  of 
Egypt;  he  cleansed  the  great  throne  of  Egypt;  he  was 
ruler  of  the  Two  Lands  on  the  throne  of  Atum.  He 
restored  those  ready  of  face,  which  had  been  turned  away. 
Everyone  recognized  again  his  brother,  after  having  been 
walled  in.  He  re-established  the  temples  to  receive  divine 
offerings,  for  sacrificing  to  the  Ennead,  according  to  their 
customary  stipulations. 

"He  appointed  me  to  be  hereditary  prince  in  the  place 
of  Keb.  I  became  superior  prince  of  the  lands  of  Egypt, 
and  commander  of  the  whole  land  united  in  one.  He 
(Nakht-set)  went  to  rest  in  his  horizon  like  the  gods.  The 
same  rites  that  were  performed  for  Osiris  were  performed 
for  him :  he  was  rowed  in  his  royal  barge  upon  the  river 
and  laid  to  rest  in  his  eternal  house  in  western  Thebes. 

"Then  my  father,  Ammon-Re,  lord  of  gods,  Re-Atum, 
and  Ptah,  beautiful  of  face,  crowned  me  as  lord  of  the 
Two  Lands,  on  the  throne  of  him  who  begat  me.  I 
received  the  office  of  my  father  with  joy.  The  land  rested 
and  rejoiced,  in  the  possession  of  peace,  being  joyful  over 
seeing  me  as  ruler  of  the  Two  Lands,  like  Horus  when  he 
was  called  to  rule  the  Two  Lands  on  the  throne  of  Osiris. 
I  was  crowned  with  the  Etef  crown,  bearing  the  Uraeus. 
I  assumed  the  double-plumed  diadem,  like  Tatenen.  I 
sat  upon  the  throne  of  Harakhte.  I  was  clad  in  the  regalia 
like  Atum. 

"I  organized  Egypt  into  many  classes,  consisting  of 
butlers  of  the  palace,  great  princes,  numerous  infantry, 
chariotry  by  the  hundred-thousand,  Sardinians,  innum- 


IT)  O 


^ 


i 


« 


^ 

3 


^ 


rR)    ^?     -rl^ 


^1 


^J 


III 

4  ^  ^ 


•51 

j7     0?    S 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  P  233 

erable  qeheqs,  attendants  by  the  ten-thousands,  and  serf 
laborers  of  Egypt." 

Putting  the  letter  to  Merneptah,  the  Osarsiph  story 
according  to  Manetho,'  and  Papyrus  Harris  together,  we 
feel  that  there  is  every  reason  for  the  following  historical 
reconstruction : 

A  people  from  southern  Palestine  settled  in  Egypt, 
in  the  most  eastern  Delta,  while  Merneptah  was  king, 
being  driven  there  by  a  famine.  Under  Merneptah's 
weak  successors,  this  people  arose  in  rebellion,  under  the 
leadership  of  Osarsiph,  thus  precipitating  a  condition 
of  general  anarchy  in  the  kingdom.  This  anarchy  lasted 
for  about  a  generation,  when  it  was  put  down  by  Ramses 
III  and  his  short-lived  predecessor.  The  leaders  in  the 
anarchy  were  naturally  the  ones  most  severely  punished. 
And  this  people  who  rebelled  and  were  punished, we  believe, 
may  well  have  been  those  Hebrews  who,  according  to  P, 
sojourned  in  Egypt  at  this  time.  And  the  beginning  of 
the  reign  of  Ramses  III,  we  are  convinced,  was  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Oppression  according  to  the  P  account.  This 
was  in  1181  b.  c. 

Ramses  III  reigned  thirty-one  years,  or  until  1150  b.  c. 
In  his  inscriptions  there  are  numerous  passages  which 
state  that  he  used  serf  labor  for  the  rebuilding  of  tem.ples 
and  cities,  among  which  latter  were  Raamses,  Pithom,  and 
Northern  Heliopolis.  Very  often  we  are  told  that  these 
serf  laborers  were  Palestinian  captives.  Ramses  III 
was  succeeded  by  Ramses  IV,  who  reigned  for  six  years. 
Then  the  records  cease  very  abruptly,  and  for  a  long  time, 
up  to  the  reign  of  Ramses  IX,  we  know  hardly  anything 
about  affairs  in  Egypt. 

I  Toffteen,  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  pp.  159-64. 


234  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  a  people  called  Apwriw, 
or  Apriw,  which  a  large  number  of  Egyptologists  identify 
with  the  Hebrews,  is  mentioned  frequently  on  the  monu- 
ments in  the  reigns  of  Ramses  III  and  Ramses  IV;  and 
then  utterly  disappears. 

We  believe  that  the  reign  of  Ramses  IV  marks  the  end 
of  the  Oppression,  and  that  the  Exodus  took  place  at  the 
end  of  his  reign.  We  date  the  going-forth  from  Egypt, 
therefore  as  ca.  1144  b.  c. 

We  then  allow  three  years  for  the  wandering  in  the 
wilderness,  for  reasons  stated  above.  This  brings  us  to 
1 141  B.  c,  which  is  the  beginning  of  the  judgeship  of 
Samson.  And  here  we  call  attention  to  the  remarkable 
fact  that  in  the  Book  of  Judges  the  first  clear  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  the  P  code  and  its  institutions  is  to  be  found 
in  the  judgeship  of  this  very  man.' 

The  Date  According  to  JED 

This  date  which  we  have  seen  made  necessary  by  the 
internal  evidence  of  P,  absolutely  disagrees  both  with 
the  statement  in  I  Kings  6 :  i  that  the  temple  of  Solomon 
was  founded  480  years  after  the  Exodus,  and  with  the 
internal  evidence  furnished  by  the  JED  documents. 

We  know  that  the  temple  of  Solomon  was  founded  in 
the  year  968  B.  c.''  According  to  Kings  the  Exodus  was 
480  years  before  this.^     This  would  carry  us  to  1447  ^-  ^• 

'  E.  g.,  Samson  is  the  iirst  Nazarite  known  in  the  Bible;  but  the  law  on 
Nazaritism  is  found  only  in  P  (Num.  6: 1-21). 

2  See  evidence  for  this  in  Toffteen,  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  pp.  7,  8. 

3  The  Greek  (both  A  and  B)  states  that  it  was  440  years.     All  other  ver- 
sions, however,  say  480,  except,  of  course,  those  based  on  the  Greek.     This  ' 
difference,  at  first  glance,  is  very  annoying,  but  can,  it  seems,  be  satisfactorily 
explained.     In  the  time  of  Josephus,  and,  indeed,  in  the  whole  Hellenistic 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  JED  235 

We  must  note  here,  that  this  date  is  found  in  an  admit- 
tedly early  document,  written  most  probably  in  the  reign 
of  Solomon,  and  based  on  the  Canaanitic  calendar  system 
then  in  use.' 

The  JED  Settlement  in  Egypt 

According  to  Exod.  12:40  the  entrance  into  Egypt  was 
430  years  before  the  Exodus.  This  statement  belongs 
to  the  JE  document,  which  uses  the  Egyptian  calendar 
system,  which  has  a  year  of  365  days.  The  text  empha- 
sizes the  fact  that  the  Exodus  took  place  on  the  very  same 
day  of  the  month  and  year  that  the  entrance  had  taken 
place.  This  would  indicate  that  the  text  had  taken 
account  of  the  107  days  that  would  be  the  difference 
between  Julian  and  Egyptian  years  in  this  space  of  time. 
But  even  if  this  be  not  conceded,  the  difference  amounts 
to  hardly  a  third  of  a  year,  and  need  therefore  not  be 
taken  account  of.  If  the  Exodus  took  place, then,  in  1447, 
the  settlement  in  Egypt  took  place  in  1877  b.  c. 

The  going  into  Egypt  took  place  in  the  third  year  of  a 
famine,  which  began,  therefore,  in  1880-18 79  b.  c.  Before 
this  famine  there  were  seven  good  years,  at  the  beginning 
of  which  Joseph  had  become  governor  of  Egypt.  This 
event  must  have  been,  then,  in  188 7-1 886  b.  c.  If  we  could 
establish  the  historicity  of  Joseph  at  this  time,  which  we 

period,  the  Jews  assumed  that  the  Exodus  was  identical  with  the  expulsion  of 
the  Hyksos.  (See  Toflfteen,  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  pp.  155  ff.)  K  we 
now  add  together  the  reigns  of  the  kings  of  Judah  from  Rehoboam  to  Zedekiah 
inclusive,  as  given  in  the  Book  of  Kings,  we  find  that  in  the  Massoretic  Hebrew 
text  the  period  is  394^  years,  but  in  Greek  B  (Codex  Vaticanus)  429J  years, 
and  in  Greek  A  (Codex  Alexandrinus)  449^  years.  According  to  the  latter 
text  the  Exodus  took  place  in  15 13  which  falls  within  the  reign  of  Thutmose  I. 

I  This  is  shown  by  the  use  of  the  Canaanitic  month-names,  and  the  word 
yarakh  for  month. 


236  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

have  deduced  from  the  Bible,  the  statement  in  Kings 
would  then  become  historically  very  probable. 

a)  If  Joseph  became  governor  in  188  7-1 886,  he  must  have 
been  born  in  1917-1916  b.  c,  for  he  was  raised  to  power 
in  his  thirtieth  year.'     As  he  was  sold  in  his  seventeenth 


THE  REPORT  OF  THE  SECRETARY  OF  KHNUMHOTEP  II 

Dated  in  the  sixth  year  of  Sesostris  II,  and  announcing  the  arrival  of  "37  Asiatics 

of   the  desert,  who  are   bringing  eye-cosmetics." 

(From  Rosellini,  Monumenti  Storici,  PI.  XXVI) 

year,^  his  going  into  Egypt  must  have  been  in  1902-1901 
B.  c.  This  would  be  in  the  reign  of  Sesostris  II  (1906- 
1887).  The  monuments  acquaint  us  with  the  fact  that 
in  the  sixth  year  of  this  king,  i.  e.,  1901  B.  c,  there  was  a 
caravan  of  thirty-seven  Palestinian  people,  under  the 
leadership  of  one  Abishah,  which  visited  Klhnumhotep  II, 
a  prince  or  under-king  of  the  nome  of  Oryx  (Benihassan). 
They  brought  with  them  eye-cosmetics  and  other  beauti- 
ful presents,  which  they  presented  to  the  prince.  A  slave 
boy  was  also  in  their  company.     The  representations  on 

'  Gen.  41:46.  =  Gen.  37:2. 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  JED  237 

the  monuments  show  that  these  Asiatics  possessed  a 
very  highly  developed  culture.  This  is  shown  by  their 
gorgeous  costumes,  their  musical  instruments,  their 
boomerangs  and  spears.  The  culture  seems  equal,  if 
not  superior,  to  that  of  Egypt  itself. 

Now,  according  to  the  Bible,  the  Ishmaelites  of  the 
J  story  also  carried  cosmetics  down  to  Egypt.'  And 
even  if  it  was  not  in  this  very  caravan  that  Joseph 
was  carried  as  a  slave,  it  is  of  great  value  to  know 
that  caravans  at  this  time,  even  in  this  very  year  of  1901 
B.  c,  were  passing  from  Palestine  to  Egypt,  bearing 
down  spices  and  cosmetics  and  slaves,  even  as  the  J 
account  states.  Further,  Joseph  is  said  to  have  been  the 
possessor  of  a  coat  of  many  colors,  i.  e.,  a  variegated 
coat,  and  the  monument  shows  that  such  coats  were 
the  usual  wear  of  these  people,  at  least  of  the  rich 
merchantmen.^ 

b)  We  have  a  stela  of  Sebek-khu,  discovered  at  Abydos, 
and  published  by  Mr.  John  Garstang  in  El-Arabah,  plate 
IV,  which  throws  important  light  upon  the  history  of  this 
very  time.  This  stela  was  erected  beside  the  staircase 
of  the  temple  of  Osiris  at  Abydos  as  a  memorial  of  Sebek- 
khu  and  six  of  his  nearest  relatives.  His  figure  appears 
on  the  stela  with  the  superscription  "son  of  Jaqp."^ 
Before  him  is  an  altar  with  offerings.  Then,  in  two  rows, 
are  the  figures  of  his  relatives,  three  figures  to  a  row. 
The  name  of  the  last  figure  in  the  second  row  is  that  of 

1  Gen.,  chap.  37. 

2  AH  in  the  monument  have  them  on,  except,  of  course,  the  slave  boy. 

3  According  to  the  photograph,  this  is  the  reading,  and  not  Yata,  as  New- 
berry reads  it.  Furthermore,  the  determinative  is  evidently  kp  (or  kp),  not 
Tawy. 


238  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

his  "wife"  or  "lady,"  and  reads  "Is-nt."'  The  inscrip- 
tion then  reads  as  follows:'' 

"His  majesty  proceeded  northward  to  overthrow  the 
Mentiu-Sati.  His  majesty  led  the  good  way  in  proceeding 
to  the  palace.  Sekmem,  it  had  fallen,  together  with  the 
wretched  Retenu.  I  was  forming  the  rear  guard  when 
the  Ankhu  of  the  army  joined  in  combat  with  the  Aamu 
(Palestinians).  I  captured  an  Aam,  and  I  caused  his 
weapons  to  be  seized  by  two  Ankhu  of  the  armiy,  for  one 
did  not  turn  back  from  the  fight,  but  my  face  was  to  the 
front,  and  I  did  not  give  my  back  to  the  Aam.  As  Sesos- 
tris  lives  I  speak  the  truth.  Then  he  gave  me  a  staff  of 
electrum  into  my  hand,  a  bow,  and  a  dagger  wrought  with 
electrum,  together  with  his  weapons. 

"The  hereditary  prince,  count,  firm  of  sandal,  satisfied 
in  going,  treading  the  path  of  him  that  favors  him,  whose 
plenty  the  lord  of  the  Two  Lands  has  furnished,  whose 
seat  his  love  has  exalted,  the  great  commandant  of  the 
city,  Zaa,  he  says,  I  have  made  for  myself  this  splendid 
tomb,  and  established  its  place  at  the  staircase  of  the  Great 
God,  Lord  of  Life,  Presider  over  Abydos,  at  the  bend. 
Lord  of  Offerings,  and  at  the  bend.  Mistress  of  Life,  that 
I  may  smell  the  incense  that  comes  forth  from  this  .... 
as  divine  dew. 

"The  great  commander  of  the  city,  Zaa,  he  says,  I  was 
born  in  the  year  twenty-seven,  under  the  majesty  of  the 
king  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  Nub-kau-Re  (Amenem- 
het  II),  triumphant.     The  majesty  of  the  king  of  Upper 

1  Newberry   reads  Nebt-An-nt.     But   the  in-sign  appears   below   in   the 
inscription,  and  is  quite  diiferent.     The  sign  here  comes  nearest  to  the  /5-sign. 
Nebt  need  not  be  a  part  of  the  name,  and  from  the  analogy  of  the  other  names  ' 
on  the  stela  it  is  a  title,  signifying  "wife"  or  "lady." 

2  El-Arabah,  PI.  IV,  a  reproduction  of  which  is  given  in  PI.  I. 


PLATE  I 


/ 


/    -^A 

-n  '.-  /^ 

'  '      !  ^  ^r  ,.  -" 

•   1      4 

/ 


STELA  OF  SEBEK-KHU 
(From  Garstang,  El-  Arabah,  PI.  IV) 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  JED  239 

and  Lower  Egypt,  KLhe-kau-Re  (Sesostris  III),  triumphant, 
appeared  with  a  double  diadem  upon  the  horus-throne 
of  the  Hving.  His  majesty  caused  that  I  should  render 
service  as  a  warrior,  behind  and  beside  his  majesty,  with 
five  men  of  the  court. 

"I  was  ever  ready  at  his  side,  and  his  majesty  promoted 
me  to  be  a  follower  of  the  ruler.  I  furnished  sixty  men, 
when  his  majesty  proceeded  southward  to  overthrow  the 
Troglodytes  of  Nubia.  I  captured  a  negro  ....  along- 
side my  city.  Then  I  proceeded  northward,  following 
with  six  of  the  court;  then  he  appointed  me  commander 
of  the  attendants,  and  gave  to  me  one  hundred  men  as  a 
reward." 

In  this  inscription  we  have  an  Egyptian  official  who 
was  born  in  the  year  twenty-seven  of  Amenemhet  II, 
i.  e.,  1917  B.  c.  This,  it  will  be  noted,  was  the  same  year 
in  which  Joseph  was  born,  according  to  the  JED  account. 
In  the  inscription  he  passes  by  entirely  the  reign  of  Sesos- 
tris II.  According  to  the  biblical  account,  Joseph  was  at 
the  time  of  his  reign  in  prison.  This  officer,  Sebek-khu, 
got  his  great  promotion  at  the  accession  of  Sesostris  III, 
i.  e.,  1887  B.  c.  According  to  JED,  this  is  the  same  year 
in  which  Joseph  was  made  governor. 

In  Gen.  41 :  41-43  we  are  told  that  at  this  time,  imme- 
diately after  this  elevation,  the  people  started  to  say  before 
Joseph,  "Abrek."  The  proper  translation  of  this  is  not  yet 
certain,  but  it  probably  means  "Bend  the  knee,"  or  "Bow 
the  knee,"  as  it  is  translated  in  our  English  versions.  It 
is  worth  noticing  that  the  chief  title  of  Sebek-khu,  when  he 
was  raised  to  office,  was  in  Egyptian  Wertu  which  probably 
means  "commandant,"  the  sign  for  which,  in  Egyptian, 
is  the  sign  of  a  bended  knee. 


240  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

The  name  of  the  father  of  this  Sebek-khu  we  render 
Jaqep.  The  resemblance  between  this  and  Jacob,  which 
in  Hebrew  is  spelled  Jaqob,  is  so  remarkable  as  to  need 
no  comment. 

In  Gen.  41 :  45  we  are  told  that  Joseph  received  a  second 
name,  ''Zaphenath-Paneah."  Egyptologists  are  as  yet 
unable  to  agree  just  what  could  have  been  the  original 
from  which  this  name  could  have  come.  But  Sebek-khu 
also  received  a  second  or  ''beautiful"  name,  Zaa,  which 
is  an  exact  equivalent  of  the  first  part  of  this  second  name 
of  Joseph's. 

Joseph's  wife  in  the  JED  account  is  called  Asenath.' 
The  wife  of  Sebek-khu  had  the  name  Is-nt,  which,  vocal- 
ized, is  Asenat. 

The  most  remarkable  fact  recorded  on  this  tablet  of 
Sebek-khu's  is  the  expedition  to  Palestine  against  the 
Retenu  and  the  Aamu  of  Sekmem.  This  is  the  first  cer- 
tain account  in  the  monuments  of  the  Middle  Kingdom  of 
an  expedition  to  this  land.  The  text  indicates  that  there 
had  been  a  rebellion  in  Sekmem,  and  that  the  Retenu  had 
fallen  away.  Still,  from  the  monuments,  we  do  not  know 
that  Egypt  had  any  possessions  in  Palestine  at  this  time. 
And  this  absence  of  mention  of  such  territory  is  the  more 
remarkable  when  we  remember  that  the  monumental 
records  of  this  period  are  exceedingly  full.  At  any  rate, 
we  know  that  at  this  time  a  great  military  expedition  was 
sent  out  to  Sekmem.  Some  scholars  have  sought  to 
identify  this  place  with  Shechem.  But  this  is  probably 
incorrect.  In  the  Greek  versions  there  are  two  words 
both  of  which  are  rendered  in  the  Hebrew  text  Shechem, 
two  words  so  different  as  to  presuppose  dift'erent  originals. 

I  Gen.  41:45,50. 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  JED  241 

One  of  these  is  Sychem;  the  other  is  Sikima  (a  neuter 
plural).  The  Hebrew  equivalent  of  the  former  is  Shech- 
em;  of  the  latter,  Shikmim.  The  Egyptian  Sekmem  is 
an  exact  rendering  of  this  latter.  A  study  of  the  Greek 
text  shows  that  Sikima  (Shikmim)  is  a  name  of  the  terri- 
tory around  Mount  Gerizim,  or  possibly  south  thereof, 
while  Sychem  (Shechem)  was  originally  a  personal  name, 
given  to  the  son  of  Hamor  (the  Amorite),  who  settled  in 
middle  Palestine  in  the  region  afterward  called  Shechem. 
The  Hebrew  text  has  confounded  and  identified  the  two 
names. 

Sebek-khu  went  down,  then,  to  this  Shikmim  or  Sek- 
mem and  conquered  a  people  called  the  Aamu,  who  had 
rebelled.  Now  these  Aamu  correspond  to  the  biblical 
Amorites.  When  we  remember  this,  Gen,  48: 22  becomes 
significant:  "Moreover  I  have  given  to  thee  Sikima 
(Shikmim)  as  a  portion  above  thy  brothers,  which  I  took 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  Amorite  with  my  sword  and  with 
my  bow."  These  are  the  words  of  the  dying  Israel  to 
Joseph.  Now,  since  Joseph  had  become  a  subject  of  the 
Egyptian  king,  his  lands  had  become  subject  territory 
to  that  king.  Further,  these  Aamu  are  mentioned  as 
having  fallen  in  connection  with  the  Retenu,  whose  land, 
at  this  early  time,  was  the  land  east  of  the  Jordan,  that 
land  which  in  the  Bible  is  called  the  possession  of  Lot. 

Just  before  Israel  died,  he  requested  that  he  be  buried 
in  the  land  of  Canaan;  and  after  his  death  Joseph  set 
out  with  an  expedition  to  fulfil  this  dying  request.  But  he 
took  with  him  a  great  army.  "With  him  went  up  all  the  ser- 
vants of  Pharaoh,  the  elders  of  his  house,  and  all  the  elders 
of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  all  the  house  of  Joseph,  and  his 
brethren,  and  his  father's  house And  there  went 


242  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

up  with  him  both  chariots  and  horsemen:  and  it  was  a 
very  great  army.'"  Why  all  this  force  for  a  mere  funeral 
expedition  ?  Evidently  there  were  battles  to  be  fought 
before  that  land  could  be  used  for  burying  in  which  Israel 
had  asked  to  be  interred. 

The  funeral  expedition  proceeded  to  "the  threshing- 
floor  of  Atad, beyond  Jordan," and  there  Israel  was  buried.^ 
Now  we  know  that  when  Israel  had  settled  in  Canaan,  years 
before,  he  had  fixed  his  habitation  in  Succoth,  south  of 
the  Jabbok,  and  east  of  the  Jordan.^  A  little  later  he 
removed  to  ''beyond  the  tower  of  Eder.""*  This  Eder  is 
identical  with  the  city  known  elsewhere  as  Edrei,  a  city 
of  Bashan  east  of  the  Jordan.  It  seems  probable,  then, 
that  the  name  of  the  threshing-floor  of  Atad  is  a  corruption 
of  the  name  of  the  threshing-floor  of  Eder,  d  and  r  being 
exceedingly  much  alike  in  Hebrew.  This  place,  and 
indeed  all  this  land  east  of  the  Jordan,  is  located  in  the 
land  which  the  Egyptians  called  the  land  of  the  Retenu. 

Nothing  is  more  possible,  in  view  of  all  these  facts,  than 
that  the  expedition  against  the  Aamu  in  Sekmem  and 
the  Retenu  is  identical  with  that  great  warlike  expedition 
on  which  Israel  was  buried.  It  is  true  that  the  Bible 
speaks  of  no  great  battles  fought  by  this  military  expedi- 
tion. But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  biblical  writer 
is  interested  here  merely  with  the  patriarchal  bearing  of 
the  expedition,  and  not  at  all  with  its  importance  from 
the  point  of  view  of  Egyptian  history. 

Was  this  Sebek-khu  the  man  whom  we  know  as  Joseph  ? 
Of  course  we  are  not  able  absolutely  to  afflrm  it.  But 
it  is  rare  indeed  that  so  remarkable  a  parallel  is  found 

'  Gen.  50:7-9.  3  Gen.  33:17. 

2  Gen.  50: 10,  II.  4  Gen.  35:21. 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  JED  243 

between  biblical  narratives  and  those  of  the  monuments. 
Both  men  are  born  in  the  same  year,  of  fathers  of  the  same 
name.  Both  marry  wives  of  the  same  name.  Both  are 
raised  in  the  same  year  to  an  office  the  title  of  which  in 
both  cases  is  the  same,  at  which  time  both  are  given  "  beau- 
tiful" names  that  are  very  similar.  And  they  both  lead 
expeditions  against  the  same  peoples  in  the  same  lands 
in  the  reign  of  the  same  king.'  This  remarkable  coinci- 
dence demands  explanation  from  those  who  claim  that  an 
Exodus  at  this  early  date,  which  we  have  deduced  from 
Kings  and  the  evidence  of  JED  itself,  is  impossible. 

c)  Among  the  scarabs  of  the  Twelfth  Dynasty  which 
have  been  discovered  there  are  several  which  bear  the 
name  of  Yakeb,^  and  several  others  with  the  name  Yakeb- 
her,  which  means  ''the  God  Yakeb,"  which  corresponds 
to  the  title  "King  Yakeb."  And  that  this  is  to  be  the 
meaning  attached  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  the  title 
"Son  of  Re"  is  on  these  scarabs,  a  title  which  is  reserved 
for  royal  personages.  Petrie  has  suggested^  that  the 
name  of  this  king,  who  was  admittedly  not  an  Egyptian, 
is  derived  from  that  of  "the  Syrian  God  Yakeb"  (or 
Jacob).  This  might  be  plausible  if  there  were  any  evi- 
dence of  the  existence  of  such  a  God.  But  unfortunately 
there  is  no  such  evidence,  and  his  existence  is  merely 
hypothetical.  Who  then  is  this  king,  Yakeb  or  Yaqeb  ? 
He  cannot  be  one  of  the  Twelfth  Dynasty,  for  we  know 
who  all  of  them  were.    And  moreover,  as  we  have  said, 

1  According  to  the  Bible,  Jacob  died  and  was  buried  ca.  i860  b.  c.  This 
is  within  the  reign  of  Sesostris  III  (1887-1854  B.  c.)- 

2  Some  read  Yakeb,  others  Yaqeb{p).  At  this  early  time  there  was  little  if 
any  distinct  difference  between  k  and  q.  The  same  thing  is  true  in  the  early 
Babylonian  inscriptions. 

3  Petrie,  History  of  Egypt,  Part.  I,  p.  xxi  (4th  ed.). 


SCARABS  OF  JACOB 
"Son  of  Re,  Yakeb" 


SCARABS  OF  JAQOB-EL 
"User-Re,  the  beloved  Son  of  Re,  Ya<^qeb-el,  giving  life." 


(From  Newberry,  Scarabs,  PI.  XXII,  Nos.  7-12,  27-30;  PI.  XXIII,  Nos.  1-3) 


THE  DATE  ACCORDING  TO  JED  245 

the  name  is  non-Egyptian.  Still,  he  lived  in  Egypt  at 
this  very  time.  May  he  not  have  been  the  sheik  Jacob 
of  the  Bible  story  ? 

Yet  one  more  circumstance  remains  to  be  noted  con- 
cerning these  scarabs.  In  the  J  and  E  documents  Jacob 
has  two  names,  Jacob  and  Israel,  corresponding  to  the 
birth  name  and  the  throne  name  of  the  Egyptian  kings. 
Now  there  is  a  scarab  published  by  Professor  Petrie  in 
which  the  birth  name  is  given  as  Yakeb-her  (King  Jacob), 
and  the  throne  name  is  Wser-Re.  Any  Egyptian  or  non- 
Hebrew  name  beginning  in  w  by  the  phonetic  laws  of 
Hebrew  must  be  changed  to  y.  In  Hebrew,  then,  this 
throne  name  would  be  Yser-Re.  Now  the  Egptian  Re, 
while  properly  the  name  of  the  Sun- God  of  Heliopolis, 
was  often  used  for  denoting  god.  This  Re  then  is  equiva- 
lent to  the  Hebrew  El.  Thus  we  get  the  name  Yser-El, 
which,  of  course,  is  an  exact  equivalent  for  Israel.  We 
have  then  the  record  of  a  non-Egyptian  king  (of  course 
an  under-king),  resident  in  Egypt  in  the  Twelfth  Dynasty, 
whose  birth  name  was  King  Jacob,  and  whose  throne 
name  was  Israel.  This  is  either  evidence  of  the  truth 
of  the  Biblical  story,  or  else  it  is  a  most  remarkable 
coincidence. 

d)  Let  us  refer  back  for  a  moment  to  Sebek-khu.  The 
stela  that  we  have  discussed  was  erected  in  the  reign  of 
Sesostris  III,  and  does  not  pretend  to  give  his  later  career. 
We  know,  however,  from  another  monument,^  that  he 
was  still  living  in  the  ninth  year  of  Amenemhet  III,  i.e., 
1846  B.  c.  At  that  time  he  must  have  been  seventy-one 
years  old.  We  find  him  engaged  in  superintending  the 
king's  observations  of  the  height  of  the  inundation,  with 

I  Lepsius,  Denkmaler,  II,  139&. 


0  0 
o  ~ 


go 

6 

CX3 


0 


fc^ 


D^- 


^0= 


I      H 


<   ^ 
«5     S 


0^      O. 


THE  REIGN  OF  THE  HYKSOS  KINGS  247 

the  title  "Commander  to  the  Ruler."  Of  the  end  of  his 
career,  or  of  anything  other  than  this  in  his  later  career, 
the  monuments  tell  us  nothing.  There  is,  then,  nothing 
in  the  monuments  to  contradict  any  later  history  of  Joseph 
which  we  may  find  in  the  Bible,  if  indeed  he  and  Sebek-khu 
are  the  same  man. 

The  Reign  of  the  Hyksos  Kings 

The  Bible  tells  us  that  Joseph  died  at  the  age  of  one 
hundred  and  ten  years,'  i.e.,  in  the  year  1807  B.C. 
Strangely  enough,  this  is  the  date  of  the  death  of  the  first 
of  the  Hyksos  or  Shepherd  Kings. 

Manetho,  as  quoted  by  Josephus,  asserts  that  the  Hyk- 
sos ruled  two  hundred  and  fifty-nine  years  and  ten  months. 
From  the  monuments  and  from  Josephus  both  we  draw 
the  date  for  the  expulsion  of  these  Hyksos  from  Egypt, 
and  find  that  it  is  ca.  1566  b.  c.^  The  beginning  of  the 
Hyksos  rule  is,  then,  about  260  years  before  this  date,  or 
ca.  1826  B.  c.  This  falls  within  the  reign  of  Amenemhet 
in,  the  successor  of  Sesostris  HI.  And  Josephus  indeed 
states  that  he  was  the  ruler  at  the  time.^  This,  it  will  be 
seen,  places  the  beginning  of  the  Hyksos  rule  in  the  nine- 
teen last  years  of  the  life  of  Joseph  as  given  by  the  JED 
documents  in  the  Bible. 

The  name  of  the  first  Hyksos  king  was  Salitis  or  Salatis. 
This  name  is  a  perfectly  good  Semitic  word,  and  means 
"ruler."  Our  "sultan"  is  derived  from  it.  The  Hyksos 
were  certainly  a  Semitic  people  from  the  beginning.* 

1  Gen.  50:26. 

2  Toffteen,  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  p.  192. 

3  Toffteen,  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  p.  153,  n.  2. 

4  It  may  be  only  a  coincidence,  but  it  is  perhaps  worth  noting,  that  Joseph 
received  the  title  "governor"  in  Egypt  (Gen.  42:6),  which  is  rendered  in 
Hebrew  with  salet,  of  course,  an  exact  equivalent  of  Salitis,  the  first  Hyksos 
king. 


248  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

The  second  king  of  this  Hyksos  Dynasty  was  called 
Bnon.  He  ruled  for  forty-four  years  after  the  death  of 
the  first  king,  Salitis.  And  Eusebius  tells  us  that  these 
two  kings  were  brothers,  and  adds  the  interesting  note 
that  it  was  in  these  times  that  Joseph  was  in  Egypt  and 
began  to  rule  there.  The  name  of  this  second  king  is 
surprisingly  similar  to  Benoni,  the  name  given  by  Rachel 
to  her  youngest  child,  a  name  which  was  changed,  by  the 
father,  according  to  the  tribal  idea,  to  Benjamin.'  Not 
only  was  Benoni,  or  Benjamin,  Joseph's  brother,  but  he 
was  his  younger  brother,  and  his  favorite  brother.  The 
question  comes  naturally,  "Was  Salitis  (the  ruler)  Joseph, 
and  was  Bnon  his  younger  brother  Benoni  ?" 

The  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Amenemhet  III  was,  as 
the  monuments  show,  one  of  perceptibly  decreasing 
power.  And  after  him  one  weak  king  and  one  weak 
queen  brought  the  Twelfth  Dynasty  to  an  inglorious  close. 
Meanwhile  the  Hyksos,  starting,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the 
middle  of  Amenemhet  Ill's  reign,  grew  stronger  and 
stronger,  until  at  the  close  of  the  Twelfth  Dynasty  they 
were  the  supreme  overlords  of  Egypt.  Is  it  too  much  to 
suppose  that  Joseph,  as  Amenemhet  Ill's  great  minister, 
in  the  latter  part  of  his  life  grew  so  strong  that  he  was 
able  to  throw  off  his  allegiance  to  his  weakening  lord  and 
to  found  a  dynasty  of  his  own,  that  which  we  call  the 
Hyksos?^ 

There  is  a  blank  in  the  records  of  the  Bible  from  the 
death  of  Joseph  to  the  birth  of  Moses.  Meanwhile  until 
Ahmose  I's  reign,  the  monuments  tell  us  that  Semitic 
kings,  these  Hyksos,  ruled  in  Egypt. 

I  Gen.  35:18. 

3  For  the  relations  of  the  Hyksos  to  the  Twelfth  Dynasty,  cf.  Toffteen, 
"Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  pp.  150,  219. 


THE  EXODUS  OF  JED  249 

The  Exodus  of  JED 

e)  Finally,  under  Ahmose  I,  ca.  1566  b.  c,  these  Hyk- 
sos  were  overthrown.  They  may  have  been  expelled  in 
part  from  Egypt.  The  monuments,  contrary  to  general 
belief,  do  not  give  explicit  evidence  of  this  expulsion,  but 
in  view  of  the  statements  in  Josephus  it  seems  probable. 
The  monuments  do  imply  that  many  of  them  were  cap- 
tured and  made  slaves.  And  from  this  time  on  Semitic 
slaves  are  not  uncommon  in  the  inscriptions.  That 
among  these  Semitic  slaves  there  were  Hebrew  slaves  is 
not  hard  to  believe.  May  this,  then,  the  overthrow  of 
the  Hyksos,  not  be  the  beginning  of  the  enslavement 
of  the  people  of  which  the  J  and  E  documents  give 
evidence  ? 

It  is  not  hard  to  calculate  the  date  of  the  birth  of  Moses. 
He  died  at  the  end  of  the  forty  years'  wandering,  forty 
years,  that  is,  after  the  date  of  the  Exodus.  This  was,  of 
course,  1407  B.  c.  He  was  then  one  hundred  and  twenty 
years  old.'  Consequently,  he  was  born  about  1526  b.  c. 
At  that  time  Thutmose  I  was  king  of  Egypt. 

This  king  had  a  daughter  named  Hatshepsut,  one  of 
the  truly  remarkable  women  of  all  time.  She  was  born 
about  1540-45  B.  c.  She  must,  then,  have  been  between 
fifteen  and  twenty  years  of  age  when  Moses  is  said  to  have 
been  born.  The  events  of  Moses'  early  life  and  the  history 
of  this  Hatshepsut  fit  together  most  remarkably.  She 
became  co-regent  with  her  father  in  1522  b.  c,  and,  after 
his  death,  became  sole  ruler  of  Egypt  in  1508  b.  c.  She 
would  indeed  make  a  powerful  patroness  for  a  humble 
Hebrew.  She  died  in  i486  b.  c,  and  was  succeeded  by 
her  half-brother,  Thutmose  III,  who  hated  her  so  that  he 

I  Deut.  34:7. 


250  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

erased  her  name  from  all  the  monuments  which  he  could 
lay  his  hands  on.  Her  partisans,  doubtless,  all  fled.  If 
they  had  not  done  so,  their  deaths  must  soon  have  resulted. 
Now,  if  the  biblical  dates  are  to  be  trusted,  this  must  have 
been  in  Moses'  fortieth  year,  seeing  that  he  was  born  in 
1526  B.  c,  and  this  death  took  place  in  i486  b.  c.  And 
Josephus,  indeed,  states  that  Moses  did  flee  from  Egypt 
in  his  fortieth  year. 

We  know  of  Thutmose  III  that  he  used  Asiatic  serf 
labor  for  brick-making  and  for  building  his  numerous 
temples.  So  states  explicitly  his  vizier  Rekhmire.'  We 
know  also  that  he  had  Hebrews  in  his  army. ""  The  cruel, 
grim  Thutmose  HI  fits  beautifully  with  the  Pharaoh  of 
the  Oppression,  according  to  JED. 

Thutmose  HI  died  in  1450  b.  c.  If  the  Exodus  took 
place  in  1447  b.  c,  then  it  must  have  happened  in  the 
reign  of  Amenhotep  II,  three  years  after  Thutmose  Hi's 
death.  And  indeed  the  Bible  says  that  Pharaoh  the 
Oppressor  died,  and  that  then  it  was  that  God  appeared 
to  Moses  and  sent  him  back  to  lead  out  the  people.  Now 
Amenhotep's  constant  title  on  the  monuments  is  "Ruler 
of  HeliopoHs,"  which  indicates  that  that  was  his  residence 
city.  And  Heliopolis  is  only  a  few  miles  distant  from 
Goshen,  where,  according  to  JED,  the  people  were  cen- 
tered. Thus  the  frequent  visits  of  Moses  to  Pharaoh  were 
neither  inconvenient  nor  improbable.  And  perhaps 
the  utter  absence  of  all  record  of  a  Hebrew  exodus  at  this 
time  is  due  to  the  fact  that  most  of  the  inscriptions  and 
monuments  of  Heliopolis  have  been  forever  lost  from  the 
face  of  the  earth. 

■  ARE  II,  758,  759. 
2  Papyrus  Harris  500. 


PART  I 

REKHMARE,  VIZIER  OF  THUTMOSE  III,  INSPECTS  THE 

BRICKMAKERS 

(From  Newberry,  The  Life  of  Rekhmara,  PI.  XXI) 


PART  II 

REKHMARE,  VIZIER  OF  THUTMOSE  III,  INSPECTS  THE 

BRICKMAKERS 

(From  Newberry,  The  Life  of  Rekhmara,  PI.  XXI) 


THE  EXODUS  OF  JED  253 

The  Conquest  and  the  Amarna  Period 

/)  Following  the  Exodus,  according  to  JED,  there 
was  a  forty-years'  wandering  in  the  wilderness.  The 
absence  of  all  monumental  evidence  of  this  is  not  surpris- 
ing, for  monuments  do  not  as  a  rule  mark  the  path  of 
nomadic  tribes.  Some  forty  years  after  leaving  Egypt, 
they  entered  Palestine,  i.  e.,  ca.  1407  b.  c. 

Now  at  this  time  Amenhotep  III  was  king  of  Egypt. 
He  reigned  from  1438  to  1402,  and  was  succeeded  by  his 
son,  Amenhotep  IV,  who  ruled  from  1407  to  1370.  During 
these  two  reigns  falls  the  so-called  Amarna  period,  for 
during  it  the  Amarna  letters  were  written. 

Most  of  these  letters  were  unearthed  in  1888,  in  the 
modern  city  of  Tel  el-Amarna.  Three  hundred  and  ten 
were  found  at  this  time.  Now  there  have  been  discovered 
about  350  in  all.  They  are  despatches  and  reports.  A 
few  are  written  by  kings  of  Babylonia,  Assyria,  Mitani, 
the  Hittites,  and  Arzawa,  to  the  kings  of  Egypt,  Amen- 
hotep III  and  Amenhotep  IV.  By  far  the  larger  number, 
however,  are  reports  to  the  Egyptian  kings,  ladies  of  the 
court,  and  high  officials,  from  Canaanitic  princes  and 
governors.  These  letters  are  very  important  to  us  in  this 
our  survey,  for  they  expose  to  view  the  conditions  in  all 
parts  of  Canaan  at  the  very  time,  when,  if  the  biblical 
dates  are  correct,  the  Hebrew  people  were  entering  that 
land. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  period  of  these  letters  it 
is  plain  that  Egypt  is  sovereign  over  all  Canaan.  But 
it  becomes  increasingly  apparent  that  the  Egyptian  power 
is  in  this  region  a  gradually  declining  one.  This  decline 
is  seen  to  be  due  to  two  causes,  one  internal,  the  other 
external.     The  internal  cause  is  that  several  of  the  tribu- 


254  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

tary  princes  are  apparently  determined  to  revolt,  while 
others  are  equally  determined  to  remain  faithful  to  Egypt. 
Thus  intrigues  are  astonishingly  frequent  and  complex, 
while  the  most  remarkable  lies  are  being  continually 
passed  around  in  a  most  unscrupulous  diplomacy.  While 
this  internal  disruption  is  weakening  their  defensive  power, 
the  Egyptian  provinces  in  Canaan  are  being  harassed  by 
three  external  trouble-makers. 

In  the  north  the  Hittites  are  making  conquests,  and 
moving  southward.  All  over  the  land  are  roving  bands, 
called  sa-gaz,  which  seems  to  mean  "the  robbers,"  a 
people  whose  origin  is  unknown,  but  who  may  have  some 
connection  with  that  portion  of  the  Hyksos  which  had 
been  driven  out  of  Egypt,  if  Josephus  be  correct,  some 
century  and  a  half  before.  In  the  south,  in  the  vicinity 
of  Jerusalem,  there  are  two  peoples  entering  from  a  south- 
easterly direction,  one  called  Ha-bi-re,  the  other  called 
Sutu. 

Who  were  these  invaders  called  Ha-bi-re?  By 
Winckler,  and  still  more  by  Knudtzon,'  they  are  thought 
to  have  been  either  precursors  of  the  biblical  Hebrews, 
or  else  the  biblical  Hebrews  themselves.  It  is  our  firm 
conviction  that  Knudtzon's  supposition  is  correct,  that  these 
are  none  else  than  the  biblical  Hebrews.  Those  who 
express  doubts  concerning  this  seem  to  do  so  because  of 
unwillingness  to  accept  the  biblical  dates,  and  for  little 
other  reason.  The  names  are  exactly  the  same,  and  the 
chronologies  fit  perfectly. 

And  even  the  acts  which  these  Ha-bi-re  are  represented 
as  doing  are  the  same,  in  many  instances,  as  those  of  the 
biblical  records.     For  instance,  they  attack  the  city  of 

I  Die  El-Amarna-Tafeln,  pp.  45-63. 


THE  EXODUS  OF  JED  255 

Jerusalem.'  The  Bible,  in  both  Judges^  and  Joshua,^ 
says  the  same  thing. 

Again  there  is  a  letter'*  from  a  certain  Mut-Baal  to 
Yanhamu,  Egyptain  captain-general  in  Palestine.  In  it 
he  reports  that  a  certain  Aiab  has  fled;  that  the  king  of 
Bi-ti-lim^  has  also  fled;  that  there  are  three  men,  Bi-en-e- 
ni-(ma),  (I)-ud-du-a,^  and  Ja-shu-ia,  whom  he  thinks 
Yanhamu  ought  to  call  to  account  for  the  defection  of  these 
kings;  that  some  sub-king  has  been  driven  out  of  the  city 
of  Astarte;  that  U-du-mu,  A-du-re,  A-ra-ru,  Me-ish-tu, 
Ma-ag-da-lim,  Hi-ni-a-na-bi,  and  Za-ar-(ki),  all  cities  of 
the  land  of  Ga-re,  are  in  revolt,  and  that  two  cities, 
Ha-pi-ni^  and  Ja-bi-shi,  have  been  captured. 

How  does  this  fit  in  with  the  biblical  records  of  the  time 
of  the  conquest  ?  Aiab,  who  had  fled,  may  be  identified 
with  the  biblical  Hobab  (which  in  the  Greek  is  written 

1  Knudtzon,  VB,  II,  Nos.  285-91.  3  Josh.  10:1-11. 

2  Judg.  1:21.  4  Winckler,  No.  237. 

s  The  name  is  generally  read  Bi-hi-si.  Such  a  local  name  is  otherwise 
unknown  in  Palestine,  both  in  the  Bible  and  in  the  monuments.  But  the 
signs  can  also  be  read  Bi-ti-lim.  Except  for  the  use  of  t  (Hebrew  teth)  the 
name  is  an  exact  equivalent  of  the  biblical  Bethel.  Nor  can  this  be  regarded 
as  an  insuperable  obstacle,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  at  this  time  we  not  infre- 
quently find  emphatics  used  where  we  expect  spirants,  and  vice-versa. 

Later.  While  reading  proof  of  this  section,  the  present  writer  received 
Bohl's  Die  Sprache  der  Amarnahriefe  (Leipzig,  1909),  in  pages  18  and  19  of  which 
are  numerous  examples  of  the  indiscriminate  interchange  of  d,  t,  and  t  in  these 
letters.  Of  special  interest  to  us  is  the  use  of  ti  (sign  hi)  for  ti.  The  identifi- 
cation of  this  name  Bi-ti-lim,  with  the  biblical  Bethel  is  thus  absolutely  certain. 

^  Only  the  two  last  signs  are  plain  in  the  photograph  of  this  letter.  Both 
Knudtzon  and  Winckler  read  it  Ta.  The  latter  part  of  the  sign  is,  however, 
clearly  ud,  and  there  are  traces  of  a  preceding  /-sign. 

7  The  name  Qa-pi-ni,  which  can  also  be  read  Ha-wa-ni,  is  a  geographical 
name  unknown  in  eastern  Palestine,  or  in  all  Palestine,  for  that  matter.  I  as- 
sume, therefore,  that  the  scribe  has  left  out  the  a5-sign,  which  consists  of  a  single 
horizontal  wedge,  and  that  the  name  should  be  read  Ha-ai-pi-ni.  This  is  an 
exact  equivalent  of  the  biblical  Heshbon. 


C9 
Oi 


10 


Obverse. 

r?fT  T  BVr  -+   U<  T-   >7U  m}\ 

>^-^T  ^r^T   n^T  TT  <<^   H«  -f;X  BVy 
i^  ^      ^t1  B  -1  :^  h  j 

^  ^  i^  T-«<  ^U  A'  -TT^  \  3TT  4^  j;? 
^=i^  -TT<T  -rll  Ml  -^^14  Ir^r  ]&  ^10 
^=i^    <in    -yU.  BVy   t^T4   hi^l   ^   ^ 

-^^  <m  -Til  BVy  ^>3T  -^1]  :ht  <t- 

T    n    ^r?    !=CT   ^^T    ^TT    ;^    ^    <T- 

-^  ^  -m  fi  Bv  AVr  BVy  mm^  h 


cg^.risl'^M    ^-41^    T    ^      -rll     '=^Tlf      .^   ^Tl^  15  Edge. 


Reverse. 


20 


25 


30 


20 


-< 


.^T  Hi:T  4s?=   -HF-  <:^r 

t?  >5^  H  ^y  -r^T!=  <iii  Hru 
^yy  —  ^y?  ^\  ''^yy^  -yy<y 
^yy  'm  ^1  -^  s^yy  y?  j^y  -yy<y 
^yy  y?  ieu  <in  ^yy  y-  j=^yy  4 
^yy  H  -y;:y!:  ^y<y  <y-  ^n  ^  jj?  y?^y  ^ 
^yy  Vi  <y-yy<y  4^  ??  "^y  "^yy^  "^^y 
^yy  ly  4-  4;:  ^yy  4-  .:<<  <y-  ^yl 
h4  ^  ^y  -Hf-  "7^  -^iif  t<n  -^^y     L  r^ 
h4  :^  -yy<y  ^y^^y    ^v.  ^  y^f^y  --^  ^  so 
^y^y  Hh  ^<  y?^y    ^^^    ^y  edge. 

yr^^y  3y^y  h4  4^  3yj=y* 


25 


LETTER  OF  MUT-BAAL 

Bu.  88-10-13,  15 

(From  the  Tell  El-Amarna  Tablets,  No.  64) 


PLATE  II 

Ohvcrsc 


f 

y ' 


£H 


Reverse 


LETTER  OE  ^^UT-BAAL 

(Erom  the  Tf//  EI-Amarna  Tablets) 


THE  EXODUS  OF  JED  257 

Aiab),  who  had  been  living  near  Jericho,  but  who  left  there 
and  went  up  to  settle  in  the  highlands  of  Judah.'  The 
king  of  Bi-ti-lim,  who  also  fled,  is  probably  to  be  identified 
with  the  ruler  of  the  people  of  Bethel,  the  house  of  Joseph 
which  Joshua  persuaded  to  join  his  army.''  The  letter 
places  the  blame  for  these  defections  upon  three  men.  One 
of  these  is  (I)-ud-du-a,  who  may  be  identified  with  Ehud, 
the  judge  who  lived  in  Jericho  at  this  very  time.^  Another 
of  them  is  Ja-shu-ia,  which  is  so  similar  to  the  biblical 
Joshua  as  to  make  identification  almost  instinctive.  The 
third  of  the  men,  Bi-en-e-ni-(ma)  may  be  Beon  (or  Meon) 
of  Num.  32 : 3,  38,  and  the  name  is  identical  with  the  com- 
mon Hebrew  name  Benoni.  Seven  cities  of  the  land  of 
Ga-re  the  letter  declares  to  be  in  rebellion.  This  is  the 
same  as  the  Biblical  land  of  Gerah,^  (which  name,  save 
for  the  late  Massoretic  pointing,  can  just  as  well  be  read 
Gareh),  a  land  in  the  southern  portion  of  the  older  land  of 
Benjamin.  Of  the  seven  cities  six  can  be  identified  with- 
out much  difficulty  with  six  biblical  cities,  all  in  this  land, 
namely  Admah,  Eder,  Aroer,  (Meshah?),  Migdal,  Anab, 
and  Zoar.  The  sub-king,  so  says  the  letter,  has  been 
driven  out  of  the  city  of  Astarte,  which,  of  course,  is  the 
biblical  Ashtaroth,  captured  by  Moses.  ^  Finally,  Ha-pi-ni 
and  Ja-bi-shi  are  said  to  have  been  captured.  These  cities 
are  to  be  identified  with  Heshbon  captured  by  Moses,  ^ 

1  Judg.  4:11,  with  which  cf.  Judg.  1:16  and  Num.  10:29. 

2  Cf.  p.  128.  3  Cf.  Appendix  II,  p.  300. 

4  Gera  is  a  "son"  of  Benjamin.  But,  as  both  Ehud  and  Saul  are  descen- 
dants of  this  Gerah,  or  Gareh,  it  is  evident  that  "son"  stands  here  for  people 
or  land. 

sDeut.  1:4;   Josh.  9:10;   12:4;   13:12,31. 

6  Num.  21:25-34;  32:3,  37;  Deut.  1:4;  2:24,  26,  30;  3:2,  6;  4:46; 
29:7;  Josh.  9:10,  etc. 


258  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

and  Jabesh,  a  city  near-by,'  which  must  also  have  been 
captured  by  Moses,  since  he  took  the  whole  country  round 
about.  ^ 

According  to  this  letter,  then,  cities  east  of  the  Jordan 
have  been  captured,  the  land  around  the  Dead  Sea  and 
the  lower  Jordan  is  in  anarchic  revolt,  the  governor  has 
fled  from  Astarte,  and,  influenced  by  certain  men,  several 
of  the  governors  have  deserted  the  Egyptian  cause.  Noth- 
ing could  harmonize  better  with  the  events  of  the  last  year 
of  Moses  and  the  first  of  Joshua,  as  given  us  in  the  JED 
accounts  in  the  Bible. 

One  of  the  names  in  Mut-Baal's  letter  we  have  read 
(i)-ud-du-a.  If  the  reading  may  be  accepted,  the  iden- 
tification with  the  biblical  Ehud  lies  close  at  hand.  It 
would  seem  that  this  man  was  quite  important,  if  a  num- 
ber of  the  letters  ascribed  to  a  certain  judge  Addi  belong 
to  him.  The  name  in  these  letters  is  written  Si-ip-tu(ti)- 
Addi.  The  first  part  of  the  name  thus  read,  Si-ip-tu,  is 
an  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  Sophet,^  meaning  "judge." 
This  much,  then,  is  not  a  part  of  the  name,  but  is  a  title. 
This  is  made  the  more  probable  by  some  other  letters 
from,  we  are  convinced,  the  same  man,  where  the  name  is 
written  Addi-dan  or  Addi-siptu.  Here  the  second  part 
of  the  name  is  expressed  ideographically  with  the  sign  for 
"judge."'*  The  important  fact  is  that  in  these  letters 
siptu  follows  after  Addi,  which  in  the  other  letters  it  pre- 
cedes, thus  showing  that  it  is  not  an  integral  part  of  the 

1  Judg.  21:8-14. 

2  Deut.  2:36;  3:10-16;  4:43;  34:1-4. 

■'  This  is  certain,  because  in  one  letter,  Knudtzon,  No.  ;^^^,  11.  5,  9,  the 
name  is  written  with  the  ideogram  for  "judge." 

4  As  the  letter  comes  from  Canaan,  this  second  part  should  evidently  be 
read  as  the  Hebrew  Si-ip-tu  or  Sophet,  not  the  Babylonian  daian. 


Obverse. 


10 


''-V 
:>-Il 


<T-®*  THnry  ^yy<r  ^4  ^^  i^^  -IH 

^IV    ZtVr     B     -/-     ^^  10 

^y(?)     ^T     <^t     iirjT      -^ 


!?       4^ 


^^T 


-TH 


Edge. 


Reverse. 


16 


20 


T  ^ 
H4 


;j:t?  ->f  g<  3  >^^T  ^sr  ^^r< 


h4 


::l)     4-     ^J^T     <J^J^ 


^T     ^T<    Z^\ 


vTY 


15 


20 


LETTER  OF  SIPTI-ADDI 

Bu.  88-10-13,  36 

(From  the  Tell  El-Amama  Tablets,  No.  65) 


^ 


V8  f}^r  pv^  ^<  rim 


r4-M  4Wi?^? 


6  ^mM^ 


m¥', 


)o  ^  f  %m'^ 


•6   (m 


n^<^p^^ 


»,?#=-  "^  f^FT^ 


P^ 


<<^  ^  nf  <^  {^  p<^  ^ 


mWm'' 


LETTER  OF  SIPTI-ADDI 
{MOSB,  I-IV,  No.  200) 


Obverse 


i\     '^     ^     rrT,     ^^     ^*f 

^  -^4  ^I'l  V  4>  V  -scH 

*?^    T^    ,ta^    ^    ^f^    r«^ 

t?  tf-  Iff    ;^^T  •?«??  JJ<!>-^  ,:g^ 

<m  '^  1^  ^^  ^^ 

LETTER  OF  ADDI,  THE  JUDGE 

Rostovicz  1900 
(From  Schiel,  MAFC,  Vol.  VI,  p.  298) 


Reverse 


'^^  ryTf^  my  -^^  i^y  ujt  ^ 

»^   ^^    ri^OE    ys^  $K^  41^  >yi^     ^ 

4^y/  ;^'  P^  'i^T  '^  n-5l  ;3at 
•0  *^}  :k-^,  r^  i^  ^}  ^^  :^,r  r«:T 

^    tf:^  ^    ^   4ff.  ^    -^  H?: 
41/   p;f  7^  P^  -^  ^  ^ 

^ETiT  ^  rf^  44. 4- 

^A  ^  ^  ^  ^1[  ^u^-^'^^ 


?> 


M 


LETTER  OF  ADDI,  THE  JUDGE 

Rostovicz  1900 
(From  Scheil,  MAFC,  Vol.  VI,  p.  298) 


10 


15 


CO 
CI 


>>.     * 

Y   TtT 

TT 

^  r 


TT 


OBYflRSB. 


n^T  g!5  y^  (?)  >.4^  rJi*  ^tVy  ->f  T4^  ^^n 
-+  ^  3^n*  ^  <T-m*(?)  '^  "^n^T?  -Hh  5 

:h!4  -^^  Til  3^u  3t4  -=^11  ^^-  iiy 

n^T     >^^r     Ml     <h     <tt    <t^    VrB] 

^r  a*  -.^*Tii  3-1?  n^T  ^::r;;'<T- 

rlJL    ^tVr    Vy^l    A-^l    ^I 


"^^w^ 


IK?)  fe*  M  <r-  y  :^  ^t 
'B^*  tr  i^<-  -^y  ^y I 


15 

iyj  Edge. 


Reverse. 


20 


25 


30 


20 


^I3::yr  <y-  ^y^^    ^::y? 
:By4*  J?;^y  <y-  >»,-  -i<    y?^y     I 
Ii!^  ^U  i^y  iBt^y   ^yy  ^;:y?  ^. 
<y-m  y?^y  ^y  ][][  -yy<y  i 

b^y  -i<  ^  ^y  "v^  ^<  ^^i^  rii  ^^y; 
<y-m  -u  m-^^  t^E  ity  ^y  v^ 
y  ^<  :e^  3^y{  ^^  t:-^  -iny  -z< 
<y-a  4f-  tr-ii  ^y  -^^y  -.^  ru.  ^^n  25 
Vr  ii-  -^^y  -^-^y  ^y  -+  "T^  -^  I 
:E>3y  ^^y  ^^y?  ^y  4-  h-^  -i^- 
^.^  Til  3::y?  y?^y  3^y?  <y-  1 
-y  -yy^  tny  <::::  »^yy  ^^y  3y^y 
j^yy  -^i^y  ^  >^  y  ,:^  ^^  3^y?3o 
<hm  m-s^  "^y  ^ffti{^  h  <y-m 
tr^n    -^y    3y^y  <y-m  m-^^ 


ity 


=TT 


:y<y  ►.i^  Til  ^^yif 


Edge. 


LETTER  OF  ADDA(?)  THE  JUDGE 

Bu.  88-10-13,  I 
(From  the  Tell  El-Amarna  Tablets,  No.  71) 


264  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

name,  but  rather  a  title.  We  have  thus  the  welcome 
news  that  in  the  Amarna  period  there  was  a  man, 
bearing  the  title  of  judge  in  the  same  sense  that  the 
word  is  used  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  at  the  time  when, 
according  to  biblical  chronology,  Ehud  should  have 
been  in  that  position. 

The  name  of  this  judge  has  been  read  by  Winckler 
and  most  other  Assyriologists  as  Addi  or  Adad.  It  is 
written  with  the  ideograph  for  Hadad  or  Adad,  An-Im, 
and  the  reading  seems  to  be  correct.  Knudtzon's  reading 
of  Baal  seems  to  rest  on  insufficient  grounds,  for  An-Im 
most  certainly  is  the  ideograph  for  Adad. 

At  any  rate,  in  one  of  these  letters"  Judge  Addi  writes 
to  Egypt  that  his  city  of  Tu-mur(-ka)^  has  been  taken  away 
from  him,  and  that  there  is  discontent — even  rebellion — 
in  the  city.  Now  tiimur  is  the  Arabic  plural  of  tamar, 
meaning  "palm-tree,"  and  corresponds  to  the  Hebrew 
plural  temarim,  meaning  "palm-trees,"  which  at  this  time 
was  the  name  of  Jericho,  Ehud's  home.  This  judge,  then, 
writes  that  Jericho  is  in  rebellion,  and  the  governorship 
has  been  taken  away  from  him.  But  at  this  time,  if  we 
may  trust  the  Bible,  Ehud  is  judge  in  Jericho,  and  at  this 
very  time  Joshua  with  his  army  is  drawing  near  to  take 
the  city. 

Now  there  was  a  captain  of  the  army  of  Yahweh  who 
visited  Joshua  a  few  days  before  the  siege  of  Jericho  began.  ^ 
May  not  this  captain  have  been  the  captain  of  a  people 
who  worship  Yahweh,  instead  of  the  supernatural,  super- 

1  See  inscription  on  p.  262,  1.  4. 

2  Knudtzon  reads,  "from  the  mountain."  The  signs  are  not  absolutely, 
certain,  but  we  prefer  Winckler  and  Scheil's  reading,  as  given. 

3  Josh.  5:13,  14. 


THE  CONQUEST  OF  JED  265 

human  agent  which  people  ordinarily  suppose  him  to  have 
been  ?  May  he  not  have  been  even  Judge  Ehud  himself, 
who  was  a  Yahweh  worshiper  and  a  Hebrew,  who,  after 
his  deposition  from  the  governorship  of  Jericho  had 
decided  to  make  common  cause  with  Joshua's  forces 
against  the  city  ?  And  if  this  be  so  we  can  easily  under- 
stand how  the  walls  of  Jericho  fell  to  the  invaders  at  a 
shout,  a  shout  which  was  merely  the  prearranged  signal 
for  co-operating  revolt  by  a  party  within  the  city. 

Two  letters  are  written  by  a  certain  woman,  whose 
name  has  been  read  in  various  ways  but  is  not  certainly 
to  be  determined.'  Her  position  is  so  unique  that  a 
number  of  Assyriologists  have  compared  her  with  the 
biblical  Deborah.  Possibly  the  name  in  this  letter  should 
be  read  Deborah.  But  more  probably  Deborah  is  a  mere 
tide  held  by  a  woman  who  held  the  ofi&ce  of  prophetess,' 
whose  name  has  been  lost  from  the  biblical  records.  At 
any  rate,  we  have  seen  above  ^  that  Deborah  belongs  to 
this  very  Amarna  period,  that  she  was  a  contemporary 
of  Joshua,  and  that  she  was  one  of  the  commanders  in  the 
war  with  Jabin  of  Hazor  and  one  of  those  who  thus  enabled 
the  Hebrew  peoples  to  unite  permanently. 

These  examples  serve  very  well  to  illustrate  the  bearing 
these  Amarna  letters  have  on  the  historicity  of  the  JED 
account.  The  historical  situation  which  they  present 
as  existing  in  Palestine  at  this  time  is  exactly  that  which 
the  biblical  account,  from  its  point  of  view,  presents. 

1  Kundtzon,  Die  El- Amarna  Tafeln,  No.  273,  reads  the  name  ameltu  Belit- 
Ur-Mah-Mes,  and  interprets  it  "lady  of  lions." 

2  Deborah  may  be  connected  with  Hebrew  dabar,  "to  speak,"  and  debir, 
"oracle-place." 

3  P.  131;  cf.  Appendix  II,  p.  300. 


Vs.  rFpEff  ^>  vf^    ^f 

'^^  ^r-  ^^  ,ffy  41^^ 

5  vi^  '^  rFrtr  ^r«<^ 


Rs.  ^  f?::f  ^T 

^  rF^ef  -^r  rf  i?f ^  Iff  .er 
<-m  ^  '^^  ^[^ 

LETTER  FROM  A  LADY  IN  PALESTINE  {Belit-Vr-Ma}^-Mei). 

V.A.Th,  No.  1 686 

(From  MOSB,  I-IV,  No.  137) 


Vs.  nM\  <^  ^  ^£=ff 
t^  p>^  ^  pyj^  ^  ^P 

5  ^  ^^1^  M  Vf  !^ 


10 


^■ 


^ 


LETTER  FROM  A  LADY  IN  PALESTINE 
(From  MOSB,  I-IV,  No.  138) 


268  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

The  Midianites  in  JED 

g)  The  Bible  says  that,  when  Moses  and  his  army  drew 
nigh  to  Moab,  Balak,  king  of  Moab,  asked  "the  elders  of 
Midian"  for  aid.'  The  context  indicates  that  these 
Midianites  were  neighbors  of  Moab.  It  is  impossible 
to  assume  that  Moab  was  here  dealing  with  the  Midianites 
of  the  northern  Sinaitic  peninsula,  or  with  the  Midianites 
proper  of  the  land  of  Mitani  in  Mesopotamia.  Apparently 
on  the  advice  of  these  elders  of  Midian,  Balak  sent  for 
Balaam,  a  Midian  priest.  He  sent  for  him  clear  up  to  the 
city  of  Pethor,  which  is  on  the  upper  Euphrates,  in  the 
land  of  Mitani.  This  passage  has  greatly  puzzled  com- 
mentators, for  a  land  of  Midian  in  the  immediate  vicinity 
of  Moab  has  been  felt  to  be  impossible.  The  accuracy 
of  the  biblical  story  has  therefore  been  impugned. 

In  the  summer  of  1907,  however,  Winckler  excavated 
the  ruins  of  the  modern  Boghaz-koi,  located  in  Cappodocia, 
which  proved  to  be  the  old  capital  of  the  Hittites.  Not 
only  Hittite  inscriptions  were  found,  but  also  some  in 
Babylonian  cuneiform  script  and  language.  The  history 
of  the  Hittites  from  the  time  of  Amenhotep  III  of  Egypt 
down  to  the  end  of  the  Nineteenth  Egyptian  Dynasty  has 
by  these  excavations  been  considerably  cleared  up.  It  was 
in  this  period  that  the  Hittites  began  to  expand  and  to  go 
south  to  conquer  Palestine.  There  are,  consequently, 
a  number  of  references  to  kings  and  events  in  Syria  and 
Palestine. 

In  particular,  a  good  deal  of  light  has  been  thrown  upon 
the  land  of  Alitani  in  Mesopotamia.  We  knew  before, 
from  the  Amarna  letters,  the  names  of  a  few  of  their  great 
kings,  e.  g.,  xA.rtatama  (I),  Suttarna,  and  Dushratta.     The 

1  Num.  22:4. 


THE  CONQUEST  OF  JED  269 

last  was  contemporary  with  Amenhotep  III,  and  lived 
a  few  years  into  the  reign  of  Amenhotep  IV.  From  these 
new  inscriptions  we  learn  that  there  was  a  branch  of  the 
kingly  line,  headed  by  Artatama  (II),  contemporary  with 
Dushratta,  and  surviving  him,  i.  e.,  in  the  time  of  the 
Amarna  letters,  and,  if  the  Bible  be  correct,  the  time  of 
the  Hebrew  conquest.  This  Artatama  (II)  was  not  king 
of  the  land  of  Mitani  on  the  upper  Euphrates,  but  ruled 
over  a  people  called  the  Harre,  a  people  which  the  Hebrews 
knew  as  the  Horites,  and  which  we  know,  both  from  the 
Egyptian  inscriptions  and  from  the  Bible,  lived  south  and 
west  from  Edom  toward  the  border  of  Egypt.  The  infer- 
ence is  that  this  Artatama  (II)  had  come  down  with  somiC 
Mitani  followers  from  the  land  on  the  Euphrates,  and  had 
conquered  some  Horite  clan  in  southern  Palestine.  There 
was,  then,  a  Mitani  people,  a  Midian  people,  who  lived 
as  neighbors  to  Moab  at  the  time  when,  according  to  JED, 
Balak  of  Moab  wished  to  consult  them.  And  the  con- 
nection between  these  Midianites  and  those  of  the  parent 
land  of  Mitani  is  plain  in  the  Bible  itself,  when  we  remem- 
ber that  after  consulting  the  elders  Balak  sent  to  the  home 
land,  to  Midian,  or  to  Mitani,  up  in  the  north,  for  a  priest 
to  curse  his  enemies.' 

I  MDOG,  No.  35,  pp.  32  and  37.  Another  part  of  the  bibUcal  history  of 
this  time  receives  confirmation  and  elucidation  from  these  newly  discovered 
monuments.  In  Judg.  3:7-11  we  are  told  that  "the  anger  of  Yahweh  was 
kindled  against  Israel,  and  he  sold  them  into  the  hand  of  Cushan-Rishathaim, 
king  of  Mesopotamia."  The  children  of  Israel  then  served  this  king  for 
eight  years,  until  Othniel  delivered  them  from  him.  Who  was  this  Cushan- 
Rishathaim,  king  of  Mesopotamia  ?  The  Hebrew  name  here  for  Mesopotamia 
is  Aram-Naharaim,  which  is  the  equivalent  of  the  Egyptian  Naharina,  a  part 
of  which  at  this  time  was  known  by  the  name  of  Mitani.  The  name  of  the 
king  himself,  Cushan-Rishathaim,  is  rendered  in  the  Greek,  which,  as  we 
have  now  often  said,  is  usually  more  accurate  than  our  mutilated  Hebrew, 
with  Cus-Arsathaim.      The  latter  half  of  this  name  is  an  exact  equivalent  of 


270  THE  DATES  OF  THE  EXODI 

III.  Conclusions 

We  find,  then,  that  the  P  account  of  the  Exodus,  when 
taken  by  itself,  is  perfectly  authenticated  by  the  monu- 
ments of  the  Nineteenth  and  Twentieth  dynasties.  We 
find,  also,  that  the  JED  account,  when  considered  apart 
from  P,  and  in  connection  with  the  statement  in  I  Kings  6 : 
I  in  regard  to  the  Exodus,  is  authenticated,  too,  by:  (i) 
the  monuments  regarding  the  Israelites  who  visited  Egypt 
at  the  time  of  Joseph's  being  sold;  (2)  the  Sebek-khu 
stela;  (3)  the  Jacob  and  Jacob-Israel  scarabs;  (4)  the 
records  of  the  Hyksos;  (5)  the  monuments  of  Hatshepsut 
and  Thutmose  III;  (6)  the  Amarna  letters;  and  (7)  the 
newly  discovered  Hittite  inscriptions. 

The  evidence  is  so  strong  that  it  is  without  hesitation 
that  the  hypothesis  of  two  exodi  is  advanced,  and  the 
following  dates  assigned  to  them: 

JED 

The  settlement  in  Egypt       .       .       .       .     1877  b.  c 
The  beginning  of  the  Oppression  .       .       ca.  1566  b.  c. 

The  Exodus 1447  b.  c. 

The  beginning  of  the  conquest     .       .       .     1407  b.  c. 


The  settlement  in  Egypt       .       .         ca.  1340-24  b.  c. 
The  beginning  of  the  Oppression  .       .       .     1183  b.  c. 

The  Exodus ca.  1144B.  c. 

The  arrival  in  Palestine  .        .       ca.  1141B.  c. 

the  name  Artatama.  (When  Hebrew  sk  is  a  palatal  sibilant  it  is  invariably 
rendered  in  Aramaic  with  a  /.)  Now,  in  the  inscriptions  found  at  Boghaz-koi, 
there  is  mentioned  a  city  in  Mitani  called  Ku-us-sar,  which  seems  the  same  as  the 
first  half  of  the  biblical  name,  i.  e.,  Cus(ar).  The  name  of  this  king,  then,  long 
so  mysterious,  means  simply  Artatama  of  Ku-us-(sar).  There  is  no  doubt  that 
this  "Cushan-Rishathaim"  was  Artatama,  the  Midianite  king  who  ruled  over 
the  Horites  of  southern  Palestine  {MDOG,  No.  35,  p.  17). 


CHAPTER  XXII 
Similarities  in  the  Two  Stories 

The  only  valid  ground  of  objection  to  the  hypothesis  of 
the  two  exodi  seems  to  be  that  the  stories  are  too  similar 
to  be  anything  more  than  different  versions  of  the  same 
history.  Even  allowing  for  the  confusion  which  was 
current  in  the  minds  of  those  who  in  later  times  combined 
the  accounts,  a  fact  which  must  not  be  underestimated,  it 
may  well  be  asked,  "How  can  these  remarkable  similari- 
ties be  explained  on  this  new  double-exodus  basis?" 

For  instance,  is  it  intrinsically  probable  that  there 
should  have  been  two  exodi  of  nearly  related  Semitic 
peoples,  or  even  two  distinct  sojournings  in  Egypt  ?  How 
does  it  happen  that  the  two  routes  are  so  similar,  and  that 
they  have,  practically,  the  same  starting-point  and  the 
same  point  of  arrival  ?  How  can  the  two  very  similar 
law-givings,  the  one  at  Horeb  and  the  other  at  a  different 
mountain,  Sinai,  be  explained  ?  Why  are  the  two  sets 
of  plagues  so  similar  ?  Finally,  and  most  of  all,  how  does 
it  happen  that  both  exodi  were  led  by  a  trio  of  men  of  the 
same  names,  Moses,  Aaron,  and  Joshua  ? 

Of  course  all  these  objections  are  natural,  and  do 
demand  an  answer.  And  we  must  admit  that  they  seem 
to  us  very  real  and  important.  On  account  of  them  there 
was  for  a  long  time  great  hesitancy  on  our  own  part  about 
accepting  the  suggested  hypothesis.  We  recognize  the 
feeling  that  is  doubtless  in  the  minds  of  many  readers, 
the  impression  that  the  theory  is  preposterous,  the  unwil- 
lingness to  consider  it  as  even  possible.     The  plausibility 

271 


272  SIMILARITIES  IN  THE  TWO  STORIES 

and  value  of  the  theory  remain  to  be  considered  in  the 
last  chapter.  Let  us  now  take  up  these  more  prominent 
similarities  which  have  occurred  to  us,  and  doubtless  to 
many,  if  not  most,  of  our  readers,  and  see  if  their  admitted 
difficulties  are  so  great  as  to  be  insurmountable. 

I.     The  Intrinsic  Possibility  of  Two  Exodi 

It  must  be  remembered  that  each  of  the  migrations  into 
Egypt,  if  there  were  two,  is  accounted  for  by  a  famine  in 
Palestine.  It  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  Egypt,  especially 
the  Nile  Valley,  was  the  natural  storehouse  or  granary  of 
western  Asia.  It  seems  probable,  then,  that  there  should 
have  been  continual  migrations  from  western  Asia  into 
and  out  of  Egypt,  according  as  the  food  suppHes  in  these 
neighboring  countries  waned  or  increased. 

And  from  examination  of  the  monuments  we  see  that 
there  were  many  migrations  from  time  to  time  both  into 
and  out  of  Egypt  from  the  lands  to  its  east.  For  example : 
(i)  in  the  Xlth  Dynasty  a  Mentuhotep  fights  with  Asiatics 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Thebes;'  (2)  the  very  large  number 
of  Semitic  names  found  in  the  monuments  of  the  Xllth 
Dynasty  show  that  there  must  have  been  numerous  Asiatic 
settlements  in  Egypt  at  that  time ;  (3)  the  Hyksos  people, 
from  the  Xlllth  to  the  XVIIth  dynasties,  are  admittedly 
Asiatic;  (4)  in  the  XVIIIth  Dynasty  we  have  an  express 
statement  by  Haremhab  that  he  gave  pasture  lands  to 
famine-striken  Asiatics;  (5)  in  the  XlXth  Dynasty  we 
have  another  statement,  to  the  effect  that  Merneptah  also 
gave  pasture  lands  to  other  Asiatics,  and  especially  to 
Edomites  from  Mount  Seir :  (6)  in  the  time  of  the  XXVIth 
Dynasty  both  Greeks  and  Semites  settled  in  large  numbers 
in  Egypt;  and  (7)  in  the  Persian  period,  from  Cambyses 

■  Cf.  Toffteen,  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  p.  234. 


THE  SIMILARITY  OF  THE  LAW-GIVINGS  273 

onward,  Semites  were  mustered  into  the  Persian  armies 
in  Egypt,  and,  as  the  Asuan-Elephantine  papyri  attest, 
the  Jews  were  numerous  in  the  region  of  the  first  cataract. 
Prior  to  this  time,  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  testify  that 
large  numbers  of  Jews  settled  in  Egypt  at  the  Fall  of 
Jerusalem. 

Further,  the  distance  from  Jerusalem  to  the  border  of 
Egypt,  by  way  of  the  Philistines,  was  only  about  two 
hundred  miles,  and  by  way  of  Shur,  through  the  wilderness, 
even  shorter.  Why,  in  those  seminomadic  times,  should 
we  deem  it  improbable  that  Jewish  bands,  impelled  by 
hunger  or  other  causes,  wandered  down  to  Egypt  and 
back  again,  not  two  only,  but  half  a  dozen  times  ?  The 
objection,  which  may  seem  at  first  glance  so  insurmount- 
able, really  has  little  force. 

II.     The  Similarity  of  the  Routes 

We  have  shown  that  the  two  routes  are  anything 
but  identical.  Nevertheless  it  may  be  urged  that  their 
general  outline  is  suspiciously  the  same.  This  may  be 
granted.  The  geographical  conditions  made  it  possible 
to  go  by  land  from  Egypt  to  Judaea  in  only  two  ways,  by 
way  of  the  Philistines  or  by  way  of  Shur.  If  a  man  wishes 
to  take  an  eighteen-hour  train  from  Chicago  to  New  York, 
he  has  the  choice  of  only  two  routes.  If  a  traveler  takes 
two  trips  on  one  of  these  lines,  say  the  Pennsylvania,  are 
we  necessarily  to  assume  that  they  are  not  really  two  trips, 
but  only  one  ?  The  routes  taken  out  of  Egypt  could  not 
have  been  anything  else  than  similar. 

III.     The  Similarity  of  the  Law-Givings 

It  is  urged  that  both  law-givings  were  on  mountains. 
But  among  ancients  the  mountain  was  often  regarded  as 


274  SIMILARITIES  IN  THE  TWO  STORIES 

peculiarly  the  abode  of  divinity,  and  this  is  especially  true 
among  the  Semites.  Moreover,  Yahweh,  the  Hebrew- 
God,  was  regarded  as  essentially  a  mountain-god. 

In  both  cases  tables  of  stone,  written  w^ith  the  finger  of 
God,  w'ere  delivered.  Stone  and  clay,  though,  w^ere  only 
the  common  writing  materials  of  that  time,  as  the  monu- 
ments of  the  Hittites,  the  Egyptians,  the  Assyrians,  the 
Babylonians,  and  the  Amarna  letters,  all  testify.  That 
in  both  cases  God  should  be  said  to  have  written  the  laws 
is  not  remarkable  or  peculiar  to  these  law-givings.  All 
laws  in  those  times  were  supposed  to  have  been  given 
directly  by  God.  And  is  it  not  true  that,  in  the  Ham- 
murabi code,  Shamash,  the  great  judge  of  Heaven,  holds 
the  stylus  in  his  hand  as  the  code  is  delivered  ? 

IV.     The  Similarities  in  the  Plagues 

It  may  be  thought  that  certainly  the  plagues  are  too 
much  the  same  for  there  to  have  been  two  sets  of  them. 
But  let  us  see  what  the  plagues  are  in  each  of  the  accounts. 
In  JED  we  have:  (i)  water  turned  to  blood,'  (2)  frogs,' 
(3)  flies, ^  (4)  Murrain, -^  (5)  haiV  (6)  locusts,^  (7)  dark- 
ness,^ and  (8)  death  of  the  first-born.^  In  P  we  find; 
(i)  water  turned  to  blood, ^  (2)  frogs, '°  (3)  lice,"  and  (4) 
boils  and  blains. ' '  It  may  be  considered  that  the  presence 
of  the  Passover  presupposes  the  death  of  the  firstborn  in 
P.     But  if  our  theory  be  correct  this  docs  not  necessarily 

'  Exod.  7:14-18,  2ob-2iah,  22h-2$. 

2  Exod.  8:1-4,  8-1  sai.  s  Exod.  9: 13-35. 

3  Exod.  8:20-32.  6  Exod.  10:1-20. 

4  Exod.  9:1-7.  7  Exod.  10:21-29. 

8  Exod.  11:1-10;    12:11-13,  21-23,  25-27,  29-42. 

9  Exod.  7:19,  20a,  2ic-22a.  II  PLxod.  8:16-19.  ' 
■°  Exod.  8:5-7,  15c.                                     ''  E.xod.  9:8-12. 


THE  SIMILARITY  IN  THE  NAMES  OF  THE  LEADERS     275 

follow,  for  at  the  time  of  the  P  exodus  the  Israelites  might 
have  already  the  custom  of  celebrating  the  Passover  intro- 
duced at  the  time  of  the  JED  exodus  long  before.  The  P 
account  shows  only  a  slight  modification  in  the  mode  of 
celebrating  the  feast. 

There  are  but  two  plagues,  then,  which  are  the  same, 
and  a  third  case  where  they  are  similar,  namely,  the  flies 
and  the  lice.  The  two  identical  plagues  are  frequent  in 
Egypt,  even  to  this  day.  The  reddening  of  the  water  is 
not  unusual,  often  being  due  to  the  decay  of  vegetable 
matter.  This  rotting  assists  the  rapid  production  of  frogs. 
As  for  the  flies  or  lice,  these  are  natural  where  there  is 
superabundance  of  animal  and  vegetable  decomposition. 
The  similarity  of  the  plagues,  then,  is  by  no  means  an 
insurmountable  difficulty. 

V.     The  Similarity  in  the  Names  of  the  Leaders 

It  is  true  that  our  Massoretic  text  calls  the  leaders  of 
both  exodi  by  the  same  names,  Moses,  Aaron,  and  Joshua. 

But  the  more  ancient  and  reliable  LXX  throws  some 
further  light.  In  that  text  the  name  of  Moses  is  generally 
written  Mouses,  but  not  less  than  107  times  we  find  it 
written  Moses.  Upon  this,  we  cannot,  of  course,  build  too 
much.  But  the  presence  of  these  two  spellings  in  the 
Greek  presupposes  an  ancient  Hebrew  in  which  there  were 
also  two  spellings.  Is  it  impossible  to  assume  that  these 
were  originally  two  distinct  though  similar  names,  that 
they  were  present  in  the  different  documents  which  were 
in  the  final  redactor's  hands,  that  he  had  forgotten,  as 
we  must  admit  that  he  had,  the  distinction  between  the 
two  exodi,  and  that  he  hopelessly  confused  the  spellings  ? 

This  hypothesis  might  be  sufficient  to  solve  the  diffi- 


276  SIMILARITIES  IN  THE  TWO  STORIES 

culty,  but  there  is  still  another  possible.  We  learn,  in 
Exod.  6:9;  Num.  3:20;  I  Chron.  6:19,  47;  23:21,  23; 
24:26,  30,  that  there  was  a  Levitical  clan  called  Mushi, 
which  is  a  gentilic  of  the  name  Mouses.  This  was  a  whole 
Le\dtical  clan,  any  one  of  which  might  be  called  Mouses. 
There  may  have  been  a  thousand  Levites,  or  almost  any 
number  one  chooses  to  name  of  Levites,  called  by  this 
name.  In  view  of  all  these  facts  the  explanation  advanced 
seems  to  us  anything  but  impossible. 

In  regard  to  Aaron  the  problem  is  a  little  more  difficult. 
In  all  the  Old  Testament  the  name  appears  only  in  con- 
nection with  the  man  who  figured  in  the  Exodus.  But 
we  venture  to  suggest  there  is  no  positive  proof  that  the 
name  was  not  frequent  in  the  older  time.  Mere  silence 
does  not  make  a  valid  argument.  Moreover,  the  name, 
as  Redslob  suggests,  may  mean  nothing  more  than  "the 
one  who  is  concerned  with  the  Ark,"  in  which  case  it  was 
not  a  personal  name  at  all,  and  might  have  been  applied 
to  many  different  people. 

The  name  of  Joshua  remains  to  be  considered.  In 
Num.  13:8,  16,  and  in  Deuteronomy  32:44,  we  read 
that  the  name  of  the  Joshua  of  these  documents  was 
not  originally  Joshua,  son  of  Nun,  but  Hoshea.  In  Num- 
bers 13:16  we  are  told  that  "Moses  called  Hoshea  the 
son  of  Nun  Joshua.''^ 

The  names  of  the  leaders,  it  must  be  admitted,  do  pre- 
sent difficulties,  but  perhaps  not  such  great  ones  as  might 
at  first  be  supposed. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

Conclusion 

This  study  of  the  historicity  of  the  Exodus  has  now  been 
completed.  What  the  value  of  the  theory  of  the  double 
exodus  may  be,  of  course  the  author  cannot  determine. 
At  all  events  he  is  certain  that  it  will  only  prove  valuable 
as  it  may  prove  to  be  true.  It  is  the  result  of  a  great  many 
years  of  study  and  of  consideration  of  the  evidences  fur- 
nished both  by  the  Hebrew  documents  and  by  the  monu- 
ments and  inscriptions  of  the  period.  It  is  not  at  all  from 
a  desire  to  obtain  notoriety  that  he  has  here  presented 
his  beliefs.  It  is  not  from  a  desire  to  oppose  or  overthrow 
the  valuable  critical  endeavors  of  the  past.  Least  of  all 
is  it  from  a  desire  to  destroy  the  traditional  interpretations 
which  for  ages  have  prevailed.  It  is  merely  from  a  wish 
possibly  to  throw  some  light  on  what  is  admittedly  one 
of  the  most  difficult  problem.s  connected  with  Holy  Writ. 
The  author  believes  that  the  theory  explains  satisfactorily 
the  great  majority  of  the  difficulties  and  apparent  contra- 
dictions, geographical,  historical,  chronological,  biographi- 
cal, as  well  as  most  of  the  variations  in  religious  concep- 
tions and  religious  institutions,  which  are  so  apparent  in 
the  Hexateuch  when  interpreted  in  any  other  way. 

Dates  of  the  Documents 

At  the  beginning  of  our  inquiry  we  stated  two  sets  of 
principles  which  serve  as  bases  of  the  Evolutionary  Hypoth- 
esis of  modern  higher  criticism.  The  first  set  dealt  with 
the  evidences  for  the  existence  of  several  complete  docu- 

277 


278  CO^XLUSION 

ments  in  the  Hexateuch.  The  second  dealt  with  the 
hypothesis  according  to  which  these  documents  are  to 
be  dated.  In  chaps,  ii,  vi,  vii,  and  xi,  we  have  given 
reasons  why  we  cannot  accept  these  usually  advanced 
dates.  We  have  found  that  these  documents  seem  to  have 
been  composed  at  the  time,  or  nearly  subsequent  to  the 
time,  when  the  events  they  record  took  place.  The  argu- 
ments for  this,  we  feel,  are  of  such  a  nature  that  a  mere 
categorical  denial  of  them  will  not  suffice.  Even  though 
in  all  cases  our  evidence  may  not  be  direct  testimony,  even 
though  it  may  seem  to  some  readers  to  be  in  places  merely 
circumstantial,  still  the  evidence  is  such  that  it  must  be 
regarded,  it  must  be  proved  to  be  in  many  cases  irrelevant, 
before  it  can  be  conclusively  shown  that  our  dates  for  the 
documents  are  too  early.  Nor  do  we  feel  that  this  line 
of  evidences  has  been  exhausted.  A  large  part  of  it, 
dealing  with  the  problems  of  Genesis,  has  been  reserved 
for  the  volume  on  the  patriarchs,  which,  it  is  hoped,  may 
in  the  future  be  issued.  But  however  much  this  evidence 
in  Genesis  confirms  our  early  dates,  the  arguments  derived 
from  the  exodus  stories  alone  seem  to  us  ample  to  demand 
a  reconsideration  of  the  dates  of  the  documents. 

The  Number  of  Documents 

Chaps,  iii,  ix,  and  xi  deal  with  the  number  of  documents 
in  the  Hexateuch.  We  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
Hexateuch  contains  not  four,  but  at  least  seven  different 
documents,  and  that  none  of  them,  except  the  original  D, 
is  contained  complete  in  our  Hexateuch.  Though  the 
integral  existence  of  these  documents  at  some  past  time 
may  be  conceded,  we  concluded  that  they  appear  now  as- 
fragmentary.     And  we  further  ventured  to  doubt  whether 


THE  NUMBER  OF  DOCUMENTS  279 

many  of  the  parts  now  designated  as  portions  of  J,  E,  and 
P,  were  ever  parts  of  those  documents  at  all.  The  evi- 
dence seemed  to  show  that  often  they  were  rather  to  be 
regarded  as  still  other  originally  independent  documents  or 
fragments. 

But  we  found  that  these  numerous  documents  or 
fragments  seemed  to  group  themselves  naturally  into  two 
sections,  each  centering  and  clustering  about  an  exodus 
from  Egypt.  The  first  set,  the  Toledoth  Book,  and  JED, 
told  the  story  of  the  Exodus  from  Goshen,  and  the  legisla- 
tion at  Horeb  and  in  Moab.  The  second  set,  P  proper  and 
small  sections  which  we  have  called  J^,  E^,  and  D^,  told 
of  the  Exodus  from  Raamses  and  the  legislation  at  Sinai. 
In  each  set  the  documents  differed  from  one  another  in 
viewpoint  and  mode  of  expression;  but,  aside  from  this, 
the  documents  within  a  set  offered  no  contradiction,  no 
real  discrepancy,  not  even  a  divergent  tradition. 

We  venture,  therefore  to  believe  that  the  Hexateuchal 
stories  of  the  Exodus  are  reliable  even  to  the  most  minute 
details,  except  where  the  later  compiler  of  the  documents 
has  misunderstood  and  changed  his  material,  and  where 
the  copyists  of  later  ages  have  miscopied  the  text  or  anno- 
tated it  with  their  own  explanations.  The  Bible,  we  are 
convinced,  in  dealing  with  the  Exodus,  is  absolutely  his- 
torical, in  the  best  sense  of  that  word,  and  trustworthy 
in  its  evidence,  even  to  details,  contrary  to  the  usual 
modern  hypothesis. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  theory  we  advance  requires  no 
upheaval  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  higher  criticism. 
But  the  historical  viewpoint  which  we  have  attained  offers 
us  new  and  valuable  criteria  for  a  proper  division  of  the 
documents  and  a  new  dating  of  them. 


28o  CONCLUSION 

We  venture,  then,  to  take  up  in  turn  each  of  the  methods 
of  dividing  the  text,  and  examine  them  in  the  light  of  this 
new  viewpoint. 

I.    Differences  in  Language  and  Style 

The  differences  in  language  and  style  in  the  different 
documents  are  by  no  m.eans  to  be  under-rated  or  denied. 
They  are  most  certainly  present  and  deserve  attention 
and  study.  As  we  have  seen  in  chaps,  iv,  x,  and  xi,  they  do 
not  help  in  the  dating  of  the  documents.  But  they  assume 
the  greatest  importance  in  the  study  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage in  that  they  show  us  the  presence  in  that  language 
of  several  dialects,  each  of  which  was  developing  and 
decaying  through  the  centuries.  By  means  of  this  new 
method  of  observing  the  differences  in  language  and 
style,  this  discovery,  if  we  may  venture  so  to  term  it,  it  is 
possible  to  study  all  Hebrew  literature  and  resolve  it  into 
its  constituent  dialects  and  literary  epochs. 

II.    Doublets  and  Triplets  of  Texts 

There  is  no  evidence  of  triplets  in  the  story  of  the  Exo- 
dus. Still  the  presence  of  these  need  not  be  categorically 
denied.  In  the  nature  of  things  we  should  rather  expect  it. 
But  the  available  data  seem  to  indicate  that  in  the  com- 
pilation of  the  documents,  when  the  Toledoth  Book  and 
the  older  J  and  E  documents  offered  three  accounts  of 
the  same  event,  only  one  was  selected,  or  else  two  stories 
were  worked  together  into  one  in  such  a  way  that  only  one 
story  remains. 

But  in  the  stories  of  this  period  there  are  a  large  number 
of  doublets,  doublets  so  absolutely  divergent  as  to  be 
genuine  contradictions.  But  these  doublets,  in  the  new 
way  of  looking  at  the  records,  do  not  undermine  in  the 
least  the  historicity  of  either  of  the  conflicting  records. 


THE  NUMBER  OF  DOCUMENTS  281 

For  the  doublets  are  not  genuine  doublets.  They  do  not 
refer  to  the  same  event  or  series  of  events,  but  to  different, 
though  similar,  ones. 

III.    Similarity  or  Divergence  in  Laws  and  Law-Codes 

From  the  new  viewpoint,  all  the  history  of  Israel  ad- 
vances its  evidence  that  the  three  or  four  law-codes  are  not 
by  any  means  contradictory.  They  are  the  products  of  the 
times  and  surroundings  which  they  seem  to  reflect,  they 
originated  at  an  early  epoch  in  the  life  of  the  people,  and 
they  had  a  profound  influence  upon  the  development  of 
Israel  from  the  exodi  down  to  exilic  and  post-exilic  times. 

IV.    Different  Historical,  Geographical,  and  Biographical  Statements 

The  numerous  historical,  geographical,  and  biographi- 
cal statements  with  which  the  Hexateuch  abounds,  espe- 
cially in  the  stories  of  the  Exodus,  are  to  us  no  longer  con- 
tradictory, nor  do  they  demand  as  explanation  the  theory 
of  a  faulty  oral  tradition.  The  "contradictions"  quietly 
disappear  as  soon  as  they  are  fitted  into  that  series  of  events 
which  each  of  the  documents  purports  to  describe.  We 
deal  no  more  with  contradictions  but  with  var3dng  histori- 
cal verities.  And  not  only  in  the  Hexateuch  itself  do  the 
difficulties  vanish  in  the  light  of  this  theory  of  ours.  The 
Book  of  Judges,  too,  long  considered  as  contradicting  the 
evidence  of  the  books  of  Numbers  and  Joshua,  emerges 
as  historical  and  reliable.  Even  its  long-despised  chron- 
ology is  found  not  only  not  to  contradict,  but  even  to 
support  the  documents  of  the  Hexateuch. 

V.    Differences  in  Religion,  Morals,  and  Ceremonies 

Finally,  the  contradictions  in  the  realm  of  religion 
which  these  early  historical  books  have  been  thought  to 
contain,  also  disappear,  and  with  them  all  the  insuperable 


282  CO.\XLUSION 

objections  to  the  unity  of  the  Hexateuchal  records  and 
the  early  date  of  the  documents  which  they  have  been 
thought  to  prove.  We  have  tried  to  show  that  Israel  was 
not  a  harmonious  unity  in  religious  belief  and  practice  until 
a  very  late  date,  and  that  side  by  side  varying  priesthoods 
and  institutions  existed  in  a  state  of  mingled  toleration 
and  rivalry.  We  have  further  endeavored  to  show  that 
there  was  not  one  of  the  religious  beliefs  or  institutions  of 
the  Hebrews  which  was  not  accounted  for  either  by  ante- 
cedent history  or  by  the  legislations  of  Horeb,  Moab,  and 
Sinai;  that  they  were  not  mushroom  growths  springing 
up  apparently  out  of  nothing  in  a  night;  but  that  none  of 
them  came  Into  existence  without  a  law  to  shape  and 
define  it.  A  large  number  of  questions,  dealing  with 
divine  names  and  religious  institutions,  belong  to  Genesis 
and  have  therefore  not  been  treated  here,  or,  if  they  have, 
have  only  been  touched  upon.  But,  so  far  as  we  can  now 
see,  there  is  not  one  of  these  but  can  be  explained  con- 
sonantly with  our  present  hypothesis. 

The  author  recognizes  that  this  theory  may,  and  prob- 
ably will,  have  to  be  modified  on  future  investigation.  He 
hopes,  however,  that  he  has  suggested  a  line  of  investiga- 
tion which  scholars  may  deem  worthy  of  their  careful 
attention,  a  line  of  investigation  which  may,  perhaps,  aid 
them  in  clearing  up  problems  which  are  puzzles  to  us  all, 
and,  most  of  all,  a  line  of  investigation  which  may  serve 
to  more  firmly  establish  the  historicity  of  at  least  this  por- 
tion of  God's  revelation.  Alay  He  who  gave  that  revela- 
tion prosper  all  in  this  book  which  is  in  accord  with  His 
will,  and  pardon  all  things  which  are  against  it. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  I 
The  Jews  and  Their  Temple  at  Elephantine 

Bibliography 

J.  Barth.  "Zu  den  Papyrusurkunden  von  Elephantine,"  ZA,  XXI, 
pp.  188-94. 

Clermont- Ganneau.    EAO,  VIII,  fasc.  6-9. 

S.  R.  Driver.     Guardian,  November  6,  1907. 

Fraenkel.     Theologische  Liter aturzeitung,  November  23,  1907. 

G.  Hoffmann.  "Bemerkungen  zu  den  Papyrusurkunden  aus  Ele- 
phantine."    WZKM,  XXI,  pp.  413-15. 

J.  A.  Kelso.  "The  Unity  of  the  Sanctuary  in  the  Light  of  the  Ele- 
phantine Papyri,"  JBL,  XXVIII,  pp.  71-81. 

Lagrange.     "Les  nouveaux  papyrus  d'Elephantine,"  RB,  XV,  pp. 

325-49- 

D.  H.  Miiller.     "Die  Korrespondenz  zwischen  der  Gemeinde  von 

Elephantine  und  den  Sohnen  Sanabalats,"  WZKM,  XXI,  pp. 
416-19. 
Th.  Noldeke.     "Neue  Jiidische  Papyri,"  ZA,  XXI,  pp.  195-205. 

E.  Sachau.    Drei  Aramdische  Papyrusurkunden  aus  Elephantine. 

Berhn,  1907. 

Sayce  and  Cowley.  Aramaic  Papyri  Discovered  at  Assuan.  Lon- 
don, 1906. 

Staerk.  Die  Judisch-Aramdischen  Papyri  von  Assuan.  Bonn, 
1907-  

In  the  year  1901  a  strip  of  pap)rrus  was  offered  for  sale  in 
Luxor,  Egypt.  It  was  written  on  both  sides,  but  the  text  was  badly 
damaged.  Shortly  afterward  the  Imperial  Library  of  Strassburg 
came  into  possession  of  it,  and  it  was  found  to  be  written  in  the  Old 
Aramaic  script  and  language  of  the  Persian  period.  Professor 
Euting  undertook,  in  1903,  the  difi&cult  task  of  editing  and  translating 
it,  and  succeeded  in  extracting  a  generally  correct  meaning  of  the 
same.  He  found  that  it  dealt  with  a  complaint  about  a  revolt  or 
some  mischief,  instigated  by  a  certain  Wi  .  .  .  g.     He  failed,  how- 

285 


286  APPENDIX  I 

ever,  in  identifying  tiie  locality,  with  which  it  dealt,  and  in  appreci- 
ating the  real  character  of  the  document. 

Professor  Clermont-Ganneau  then  took  up  the  questions,  left 
unsolved  by  Dr.  Euting.  He  perceived  that  the  locality  was  here 
called  JB,  which  could  be  nothing  else  l)ut  the  Egyptian  Jeb,  the 
Greek  Elephantine.  Still  more  remarkable  was  his  penetrating 
insight  into  the  character  of  the  document.  He  reasoned  that  it 
could  not  have  been  written  by  a  native  Egyptian  because  it  was  a 
complaint  against  Egyptian  officials  and  priests.  Neither  could  it 
be  of  Persian  or  Babylonian  origin,  because  it  failed  to  designate 
Khnub,  god  of  Elephantine,  as  a  god.  He  argued,  therefore,  that  the 
man  who  made  complaints  against  the  priests  of  the  god  Khnub, 
without  calling  Khnub  a  god,  must  be  a  Jew.  His  hypothesis  seemed 
daring,  but  it  was  built  on  sound  principles,  and  later  discoveries 
have  confirmed  it  in  every  detail. 

About  the  same  time  a  new  find  of  Aramaic  papyri  was  placed  on 
sale  in  Assuan,  a  city  on  the  eastern  bank  of  the  Nile,  opposite  the 
island  of  Elephantine,  and  just  below  the  First  Cataract.  Professor 
Sayce  acquired  one  of  them  for  the  Bodleian  Library,  two  went  to 
the  British  Museum,  a  large  number  to  the  Cairo  Museum,  and  still 
others  have  been  acquired  by  other  museums,  while  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  some  of  these  papyri  are  now  in  private  ownership. 

Professors  Sayce  and  Cowley  published,  in  1906,  not  less  than 
sixteen  of  these  papyri.  Almost  all  of  them  were  in  perfect  preserva- 
tion, undisturbed  and  uninjured  since  the  day  they  were  laid  aside 
some  2,350  years  ago.  The  strings  were  still  tied  around  them,  and 
the  old  clay-seals  were  still  fastened  to  the  string-knots.  Their  script 
and  language  is  also  that  of  the  old  Aramaic.  They  deal  with  busi- 
ness transactions  in  the  city  or  fortress  Elephantine,  and  there  seems 
to  be  good  reason  for  assuming  that  all  the  Assuan  papyri  as  well  as 
the  Euting  papyrus  have  come  originally  from  that  city. 

The  chief  interest  in  these  papyri  centers  about  the  fact,  that  they 
present  us  with  a  vivid  picture  of  a  prosperous  Jewish  community 
in  that  city  in  the  fifth  century  B.  c.  And  the  picture  is  so  vivid  that 
we  can  not  only  follow  these  Jews  in  some  details  of  the  daily  routine 
of  their  life  but  we  know  even  how  they  built  their  homes  and  where, 
their  houses  were  located.     The  Jews  of  Elephantine  had  quarters 


THE  JEWS  AND  THEIR  TEMPLE  AT  ELEPHANTINE     287 


of  their  own  in  the  northwestern  part  of  the  city;  they  had  their  own 
court,  besides  a  Hebrew  tribunal  in  Assuan,  making  their  oaths  in 
the  name  of  Yahu  (Yahweh),  an  oath  which  was  as  valid  in  Egyptian 

MAP  OF  THE  JEWISH   QUARTER   IN   ELEPHANTINE,  SHOWING 

THE  LOCATION  OF  JEWISH  PROPERTY  AND  THE 

TEMPLE  OF  JAHU 


Peftonit, 
saylor 


Espemet, 
son  of 

Peftonit, 

saylor 


Street 


15. 


Mahseiah, 

son  of 
Yedoniah 


4. 

Qoniah 
son  of 
Zadok 


5- 

Mibh- 
tayah 


6. 

Dargman, 

son  of 

Harshin 


Zechariah, 
son  of 
Nathan 


8. 

Yezaniah, 
son  of 
Uriah 


9- 

Hoshea, 
son  of 
Uriah 


Street 


14. 


10. 

Temple 

of 

Yahu 


II. 

Mibh- 
tahyah 


12. 

Ye<^6r 

son  of 

Penuliah 


Street 


16. 


13. 

Gadol, 
son  of 
Hoshea 


law  as  an  oath  made  in  the  name  of  Khnub  and  Sati,  the  ancient 
gods  of  Elephantine. 

But  even  a  minute  description  of  ancient  property  would  not  be 
particularly  novel  at  the  present  time,  since  several  monuments  have 
lately  been  discovered  in  Egypt  and  Babylonia,  acquainting  us  with 
similar  documents  of  a  far  higher  age.  Not  even  the  fact  that  the 
agents  are  Jews  in  this  case,  is  extraordinarily  novel,  for  we  have  found 
from  the  Babylonian  documents  that  Jews  possessed  property  and 
conducted  large  business  transactions  in   several  cities  of  Babylonia 


200  APPENDIX  I 

at  this  very  time.  The  all-absorbing  interest  in  these  Assuan  deeds 
is  the  fact  that  two  of  them  locate  properties  as  adjoining  the  "chapel" 
of  Yahu.  Now  the  Aramaic  word  used  here  for  "chapel"  is  EgHra', 
which  otherwise  denotes  "temple"  in  the  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  and 
Aramaic  languages.  But  it  seemed  improbable  to  Professors  Sayce 
and  Cowley,  that  there  could  be  a  Jewish  temple  in  Elephantine,  and, 
therefore,  they  translated  it  with  "chapel,"  "synagogue."  For  who 
could  dream  that  there  existed  a  Jewish  temple  in  Egypt  in  the  fifth 
century  b.  c.  ?     Happily,  all  this  is  now  changed. 

The  assured  fact,  however,  that  a  "chapel,"  or  a  "synagogue," 
consecrated  to  the  worship  of  Yahweh,  existed  in  Egypt  at  that  time, 
awoke  the  keenest  interest  among  scholars  all  over  the  world.  Within 
a  few  months,  a  considerable  literature  of  learned  treatises  had  sprung 
up  around  this  splendid  publication  of  Professors  Sayce  and  Cowley. 

While  this  was  going  on  Dr.  Rubensohn  was  busy  with  excavations 
on  the  island  of  Elephantine,  and  in  the  spring  of  1907  he  discovered 
three  Aramaic  papyri,  found  in  a  house  that  probably  had  belonged 
to  the  original  owner  of  them,  the  chief  priest  Yedoniah.  All  three 
papyri  were  well  preserved  and  they  were  written  in  the  Aramaic 
script  and  language.  They  were  immediately  brought  to  Germany 
and  turned  over  to  Professor  Sachau.  He  undertook  to  read  them, 
and  at  the  session  of  the  Philosophical-Historical  Department  of  the 
Royal  Prussian  Academy  of  Sciences  in  Berlin  on  the  25th  of  July, 
1907,  he  presented  an  able  and  scholarly  translation  of  these  docu- 
ments, together  with  notes  and  explanations  of  the  more  important 
points.  This  was  immediately  ordered  to  be  printed,  and  was  pub- 
lished on  the  loth  of  October,  1907. 

Of  the  three  Elephantine  papyri,  two  are  concepts,  drawn  up  for 
a  petition  to  the  governor  of  Jerusalem.  The  third  is  a  memorandum 
of  an  order,  issued  by  the  governor  of  Jerusalem  and  sent  to  the  Jews 
of  Elephantine  in  answer  to  their  petition.  The  two  concepts  cover 
essentially  the  same  ground,  but  as  only  one  of  these  is  published  in 
facsimile,  we  shall  confine  our  translation  to  the  same.  It  contains 
thirty  lines  and  reads  as  follows: 
I.  To  our  Lord  Bagohi,   Governor  of  Judali,   thy  servants, 

Yedoniah  and  his  companions,  the  priests  in  the  fortress  Ele- 
phantine, {send) 


THE  JEWS  AND  THEIR  TEMPLE  AT  ELEPHANTINE     289 

Greeting  1 

2.  May  our  Lord,  the  God  oflteaven,  grant  abundance  at  all  time, 

3.  and  place  thee  in  favor  before  King  Darius  and  the  sons  of  the 
palace.  Prosperity,  one  thousandfold  more  than  now,  and  long 
life  may  he  give  thee,  and  may  there  be  joy  and  gladness  at  ail  time! 

4.  Now,  thy  servant  Yedoniah  and  his  companions,  we  speak 
thus: 

In  the  month  of  Tammuz,  in  the  fourteenth  year  of  King 

5.  Darius,  at  the  time  when  Arsham  had  departed  and  gone  to  the 
King,  the  priests  of  god  Khnub,  which  were  in  the  fortress  Ele- 
phantine, made  a  league  with  Waidrang,  who  was  chief  comman- 
der here,  saying: 

6.  "  The  temple  of  God  Yahu,  which  is  in  the  fortress  Elephan- 
tine, let  them  take  (it)  away  from  thencer 

7.  Thereupon  that  accursed  Waidrang  sent  a  letter  to  Naphdydn, 
his  son,  who  was  commander  of  the  garrison  in  the  fortress 
Assuan,  saying: 

''Let  them  destroy  the  temple,  which  is  in  the  fortress  Elephan- 
tine!" 

8.  Thereupon  Naphdydn  ordered  the  Egyptians  together  with 
the  other  forces;  they  came  to  the  fortress  Elephantine  with  their 

9.  weapons  of  destruction,  entered  into  this  temple,  destroyed  it  to 
the  ground,  and  the  pillars  which  were  there  they  brake  asunder, 
they  discomfited. 

10.  Furthermore,  there  were  five  stone-gates,  built  of  hewn  stone, 
which  were  in  this  temple;  them  they  destroyed,  and  their  doors 

11.  they  removed,  and  their  copper-hinges,  which  {were  fastened)  in 
marble-blocks,  and  the  covering  {made)  of  cedar-beams,  all  of 

12.  which,  together  with  the  rest  of  the  equipment  and  other  things 
which  were  there,  all  they  burnt  with  fire;   and  all  the  golden 

13.  basons,  and  the  silver,  and  whatsoever  there  was  in  this  temple, 
all  they  took,  and  appropriated  for  themselves. 

Now,  in  the  days  of  the  King{s)  of  Egypt  our  fathers  had 

14.  built  this  temple  in  the  fortress  Elephantine.  And  when  Camby- 
ses  entered  Egypt,  he  found  this  temple  built.  Although  they 
overthrew  all  the  temples  of  the  gods  of  Egypt,  no  one  injured 
anything  in  this  temple. 


290  APPENDIX  I 

15.  But  since  they  did  thus,  n'e  U'ith  our  unves  and  our  children 
have  put  on  sackcloth,  and  we  have  fasted  ajid  prayed  to  Yahu, 

16.  the  Lord  of  heaven,  who  has  vindicated  us  on  W  aid  rang,  that 
dog — they  have  laid^  his  feet  in  fetter{s),  and  all  the  property 

17.  which  he  acquired  has  perisJied,  and  all  tJie  nien  who  had  unshed 
evil  against  this  temple  are  slain,  and  we  have  seen  our  desire 
upon  them. 

18.  Furthermore,  before  this,  at  the  time  when  this  evil  was  done 
to  us,  we  sent  a  letter  {to)  our  lord,  and  to  Jehohanan,  the  high- 
priest,  and  to  his  companions,  the  priests  which  are  in  Jerusalem, 

19.  and  to  his  brother  Ostan,  i.  e.,  Anani,  and  to  the  nobles  of  the 
Jews,  (but)  not  a  single  letter  did  they  send  to  us. 

Furthermore,  from  the  Tammuz-duy  of  the  fourteenth  year 

20.  of  King  Darius  and  until  this  day  we  have  put  on  sackcloth  and 

2 1 .  fasted;  our  wives  have  become  like  widow{s);  we  have  not  anointed 
ourselves  with  oil,  nor  drunk  wine. 

Furthermore,  from  that  ti)ne  until  this  day  of  the  fourteenth 
year  of  King  Darius  they  have  not  offered  in  this  temple  a  meal- 
ofjering,  or  frankincense,  or  a  holocaust. 

22.  A^ow,  thy  servants  Yedoniah  and  his  companions,  and  the 
Jews,  all  the  citizens  of  Elephantine,  say  thus: 

23.  ////  seem  good  to  our  lord,  think  upon  this  temple,  that  it  may 

24.  be  rebuilt!  Look  upon  the  recipients  of  thy  bounty  and  goodness, 
who  are  here  in  Egypt!    May  a  letter  be  sent  from  thee  unto  them 

25.  concerning  the  temple  of  God  Yahu,  that  it  may  be  rebuilt  in  the 
fortress  Elephantine,  as  it  was  built  informer  times.     Then  they 

26.  shall  present  meat-offerings,  and  incense-offerings,  and  holocausts 
upon  the  altar  of  God  Yahu  in  thy  name;  yea,  we  will  pray  for 

27.  thee  at  all  times,  we  and  our  wives  and  our  cliildren  and  the  Jews, 
all  who  are  here,  if  they  do  thus,  until  this  temple  is  rebuilt;  yea, 
a  legitinmte  portion  shall  belong  to  thee,  before  Yahu,  the  God  of 

28.  heaven,  from  any  one  who  shall  present  to  Him  a  Jiolocaust  and 
sacrifices,  in  value  equivalent  to  a  sum  of  1,000  talents.     And  in 

29.  regard  to  the  gold — concerning  that  we  have  {already)  sent 
information. 

1  Orig.  "established,"  used  also  of  a  decree,  that  "went  forth,"  i.  e.,  "was' 
established." 


Km3  l.tlf  I? 


r 


■s4" 


^  -? 


€ 


BAGOHI  291 

Furthermore,  we  have  sent  concerning  all  the{se)  matters  in  a 
letter  to  Delayah  and  Shelemayah,  sons  of  Sanballat,  Governor 
of  Samaria. 
30.  Furthermore,  Arsham  has  no  knowledge  of  all  that  which 

has  been  done  to  us. 

On  the  [twentieth]  day  of  Marcheswan,  in  the  seventeenth 
year  of  King  Darius. 

NOTE 

I.     Bagohi 

This  governor  of  Jerusalem  and  Judah  is  known  from  Josephus 
{Antiquities,  xi,  7:1).  Josephus  calls  him  Bagoas,  and  mentions 
him  as  serving  in  the  time  of  Artaxerxes  II  (404-359  b.  c).  The 
high-priest  of  Jerusalem  at  this  time  was  Jehonan,  called  Jehohanan 
in  this  document. J  Joshua,  a  brother  of  Johanan,  was  an  intimate 
friend  of  Bagoas,  and  had  been  promised  by  the  latter  the  high-priestly 
office  at  his  brother's  death.  This  seems  to  have  made  him  so  aggres- 
sive, and  his  conduct  so  offensive,  that  his  brother  Johanan,  the  high- 
priest,  one  day  killed  him  in  the  temple.  This  crime  was  so  out- 
rageous and  so  heinous,  that  it  gave  Bagoas  an  excellent  opportunity 
for  entering  the  temple  and  punishing  the  offender,  in  spite  of  the 
protests  of  the  Jews.  Bagoas  vindicated  the  death  of  his  friend  by 
imposing  a  heavy  fine  on  Johanan,  consisting  of  a  large  share  of  all 
the  sacrifices  offered  in  the  temple  for  the  following  seven  years.  This 
punishment  affected  the  high-priest  and  the  people  alike. 

It  is  evident  from  these  documents  that  Bagoas  or  Bagohi  was 
appointed  governor  of  Judah  by  Darius  II,  and  not  by  Artaxerxes  II. 
Since  the  first  letter  of  the  Jews  of  Elephantine  was  addressed  to  him 
in  41 1  B.  c,  it  follows  that  he  was  governor  of  Judah  at  that  time,  and 
that  his  appointment,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  made  by  Artaxer- 
xes II,  as  some  scholars  have  inferred  from  Josephus.  It  is,  of  course, 
possible  that  he  was  succeeded  by  another  Bagoas,  appointed  by 
Artaxerxes  II,  but  it  is  more  natural  to  interpret  Josephus  as  saying 
that  Bagoas  got  his  appointment  as  general  in  the  reign  of  Artaxerxes 
II,  but  that  he  became  governor  of  Judah  in  the  time  of  Darius  II. 

It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  the  murder  of  Joshua  took  place  in  the 
interval  of  411-408  b.  c.  When  the  Jews  appealed  to  Jerusalem  for 
I  Cf.  above,  1.  18. 


292  APPENDIX  I 

help  in  the  year  411  b.  c,  their  petition  was  addressed  both  to  the 
governor  and  the  high-priest.  Now,  in  408  the  high-priest  is  ignored 
and  the  governor  of  Samaria,  whom  we  should  expect  to  have  been 
abhorred  by  every  Jew,  takes  his  place.  It  is  possible,  therefore, 
that  the  murder  of  Joshua  had  taken  place  in  the  meantime.  The 
Jews  of  Elephantine  were  evidently  well  posted  on  affairs  in  Jerusa- 
lem, and  knowing  the  disgrace  into  which  the  high-priest  had  fallen, 
were  well  aware  that  they  would  only  weaken  their  cause  by  men- 
tioning him  in  this  second  petition.  Consequently  they  passed  him 
by  entirely.  This  strategem  may  even  have  been  one  of  the  reasons 
that  inclined  the  governor  to  grant  them  the  favor  they  asked  for. 
The  name  Bagoas  seems  to  have  been  common  among  the  Per- 
sians. Thus  we  find  a  Persian  nobleman  bearing  this  name  in  the 
service  of  Darius  I.'  The  eunuch  general  Bagoas  served  under  the 
sixth  Persian  king.^  Even  among  the  Jews  this  name  became  com- 
mon in  the  Persian  period.  A  certain  Bigvai  sealed  the  covenant 
of  Nehemiah,3  but  Bigvai  should  undoubtedly  be  pronounced  Bagoy 
or  Bagoas.  One  of  the  princes  of  the  returning  exiles  was  called 
Bigvai,-*  and  another  Bigvai  appears  in  Ezra's  caravan.'' 

II.     The  Temple  at  Elephantine 

The  Jewish  temple  at  Elephantine  was  not  simply  a  synagogue 
or  an  altar-house,  but  a  real  temple,  because  our  papyrus  designates 
it  as  a  temple  by  the  same  word  that  it  uses  for  the  Egyptian  temples. 
This  temple  had  a  naos  with  columns  in  front  of  it,  and  an  altar  of 
incense  and  a  seven-branched  candlestick*^  within  it.  It  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  court  which  contained  the  holocaust-altar,  and  which 
was  girdled  by  a  wall  with  five  gates. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  papyrus  to  show  that  the  naos  contained 
more  than  one  room — the  Holy  Place.  It  had  no  Holy  of  HoHes.  Nor 
did  the  Jewish  community  of  Elephantine  have  a  high-priest.  Jedo- 
niah  was  their  chief-priest,  equal  with  his  "companions,"  but  he  was 

'  Herodotus,  iii:  128.  4  Ezra  2:2,  also  mentioned  in  Neh.  7:7. 

2  About  342  B.  c.  5  Ezra  8: 14. 

3  Neh.  10:16. 

(•  A  Jewish  ostracon,  found  by  Professor  Maspero  at  Elephantine,  shows  a 
seven-branched  candlestick. 


THE  TEMPLE  AT  ELEPHANTINE  293 

not  a  high-priest.  The  high-priest  of  Jerusalem  was  high-priest  of 
the  Jews  in  Elephantine,  and  all  other  Jews  as  well.  The  Holy  of 
Holies  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  was  the  oracle-place  of  all  Jews, 
both  in  Elephantine  and  elsewhere. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  temple  at  Elephantine  was  in  strict  accord 
with  Deuteronomy,  which  restricted  the  "dwelling-place  of  Yahweh's 
name"  to  one  central  sanctuary,  now  estabUshed  at  Jerusalem,  but 
permitted  sacrifices  everywhere.  The  Jews  of  Elephantine  were, 
then,  worshiping  in  entire  accord  with  Deuteronomy,  and  the  utter- 
ances of  Isaiah.' 

Further,  this  papyrus  shows  us  that  the  Jews  of  Elephantine  con- 
ducted their  worship  according  to  the  strict  regulations  of  the  whole 
P  code — the  holocausts,  peace-sacrifices,  meal-oflferings,  incense, 
fasting,  prayers,  all  point  to  the  laws  of  the  P  code,  which  thus  must 
have  been  in  operation  in  Egypt  not  later  than  525  b.  c,  and  probably 
from  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century. 

I  Isa.   19:19. 


APPENDIX  II 
Ancient  Chronology' 

Bibliography^ 

E.  Amelineau.     "Chronologic    des   rois   de    I'epoque    archaique," 

RE,  XII,  pp.  185-204. 

W.  E.  Beecher.  The  Dated  Events  of  the  Old  Testament.  Philadel- 
phia, 1907. 

A.  Bosse.  "Die  chronologische  System  im  Alten  Testamente  und 
bei  Josephus,"  MVG,  1908,  pp.  101-76. 

J.  H.  Breasted.  A  History  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians.  New  York, 
1908. 

A.  T.  Clay.  "The  Assyrian,  Neo-Babylonian,  and  Persian  Periods," 
BE,  Ser.  A,  Vol.  VIII,  Part  I,  pp.  3-5. 

S.  A.  Cook.     "Babylonian  Chronology,"  PEFQS,  1907,  pp.  318  flf. 

.     "Notes  on  the  Dynasties  of  Omri  and  Jehu,"  JQR,  Vol. 

XX,  pp.  597-631. 

G.  Cormack.     Egypt  in  Asia.     London,  1908. 

H.  Dhorme.    "Sargon,  Pere  de  Naram-Sin,"  OLZ,  1909,  pp.  53-63. 

F.  C.  Eiselen.     Sidon,  a  Study  in  Oriental  History.    New  York,  1907. 
W.  Erbt.     "Das  Jobeljahr,"  OLZ,  1907,  pp.  636-38. 
Folkeringham.     The  Chronology  of  the  Old  Testament,     Cambridge, 

1906. 
I.  A.  Galvao.     "Note  sur  la  IWe  et  la  Ve  dynasties,"  RE,  XII,  pp. 

120-22. 
A.  B.  Gardiner.     "Mesore  as  First  Month  of  the  Egyptian  Year," 

ZA,  XLII,  pp,  136-44. 
F.    K.    Ginzel.     Handhuch  der  Mathematischen   und   TecJinischen 

Chronologic.     I  Band.     Leipzig,  1906. 
F.  LI.   Griffith.     "The  Length  of  the  Reign  of  Amenhotep  II," 

PSBA,  XXXI,  pp.  42,  43. 

1  Supplement  to  the  author's  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I.  Chicago,  1907. 

2  This  bibliography  represents  merely  the  books  and  articles  that  have 
come  to  the  notice  of  the  author  since  the  publication  of  his  ^4Hc/eH/  Chron- 
ology, Part  I. 

294 


ANCIENT  CHRONOLOGY  295 

H.  R.  Hall.  "The  Discoveries  in  Crete  and  Their  Relation  to  the 
History  of  Eg}^t  and  Palestine,"  PSBA,  XXXI,  pp.  135-48. 

"Mursil  and  Myrtilos,"  JHS,  XXIX,  pp.  19-22. 

H.  V.  Hilprecht.  "  Der  Zwolfte  Konig  der  ersten  Dynastie  von  Isin," 
OLZ,  1907,  pp.  385-87. 

C.  Hirschenzohn.     Yamim  Miqqeden.     Hoboken. 

E.  W.  Hollingworth.     "The  Hyksos  and  the  Twelfth  Dynasty," 

PSBA,  XXX,  pp.  155-58. 

F.  Hommel.     "Die  Genealogie  des  Kassitenkonigs  Agum  des  Zweit- 

tens,"  OLZ,  1909,  pp.  108,  109. 

M.  Jastrow,  Jr.     "Urumus,"  ZA,  XXI,  pp.  177-82. 

C.  H.  W.  Johns.  "On  the  Length  of  the  Month  in  Babylonia," 
PSBA,  XXX,  pp.  221-30. 

.     "The  First  Year  of  Samsu-Iluna.    PSBA,  XXX,  pp.  70,  71 . 

.  "The  Babylonian  Chronicle  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Baby- 
lon," PSBA,  XXIX,  pp.  107-11. 

.     "Note  on  the  Chronicle  of  the  First  Dynasty  of  Babylon," 

PSBA,  XXIX,  pp.  108-10. 

.     "Some  Further  Notes  on  the  Babylonian  Chronicle  of  the 

First  Dynasty,"  PSBA,  XXXI,  pp.  14-19. 

.     "The  Chronology  of  Ashurbanipal's  Reign,"  b.  c    668- 


626,  PSBA,  XXIX,  pp.  74-84. 
F.  A.  Jones.     "The  ancient  Year  and  the  Sothic  Cycle,"  PSBA, 

XXX,  pp.  95-106. 
L.  W.  King.     "Sargon  I,  King  of  Kish,  and  Shar-gani-sharri,  King 

of  Akkad,"  PSBA,  XXX,  pp.  238-42. 
J.  A.  Knudtzon.     "Die  El-Amarna  Tafeln,"  VAB,  II,  pp.  25-42. 
F.    X.    Kugler.     "Darlegung    und    Thesen    iiber    altbabylonische 

Chronologic,"  ZA,  XXII,  pp.  63-78. 
St.    Langdon.     "Sumerians    and   Semites    in    Babylonia."     Baby- 

loniaca,  II,  pp.  137-62. 
F.    Legge.     "Was    Khasekhmui   called   Mena?"     PSBA,    XXXI, 

pp.  128-32. 
C.   F.  Lehmann-Haupt.     "Die   Sothis-Periode  und  der  Kalender 

des  Papyrus  Ebers,"  Klio,  VIII,  pp.  213-26. 
.     "Berossos'    Chronologic   und   die   keilinschriftliche   Neu- 

funde,"  Klio,  VIII,  pp.  227-51. 


296  APPENDIX  II 

C.  F.  Lehmann-Haupt.     "Zur  Aufnahme  der  Israeliten  in  Gosen," 

Klio,  IX,  pp.  260  £f. 
J.  Lieblein.     "The  Exodus  of  the  Hebrews,"  PSBA,  XXIX,  pp. 

214-18. 
.     "Le  nom  royal  et  la  date  du  Papyrus  Ebers,"  Sphinx, 

XII,  pp.  155  ff. 
E.  Lindl.     "Ein  Datum  Libit-Istars,  Konigs  von  Isin,"  OLZ,  1907, 

pp.  387,  388. 
G.  Maspero.     Ancient  Egypt,  Eng.  transl.  by  E.  Lee.     New  York, 

1909. 
B.  Meissner.     "Lipit-Istar,"  OLZ,  1907,  pp.  113-15. 
L.    Messerschmidt.     "Zur    altbabylonischen    Chronologie,"    OLZ, 

1907,  pp.  169-75. 
Ed.  Meyer.     Nachlrdge  zur  AgyptiscJien  Chronologie.     Berlin,  1908. 
.     "Neue    Nachtrage    zur    agyptischen    Chronologie,"    ZA, 

XLIV,p.  115. 
M.  A.  Meyer.     History  of  the  City  of  Gaza.     New  York,  1907. 
Miketta.     Der  Pharaoh  des  Auszuges.     Freiburg  i.  B.,  1903. 
E.  Newberry  and  J.  Garstang.     A  Short  History  of  Ancient  Egypt. 

London,  1907. 
E.    E.    Peiser.     "Synchronistische    Geschichte    und    Chronik    P," 

OLZ,  1908,  pp.  7-10. 

.     "Die  Dynastie  von  Pase,"  OLZ,  1907,  pp.  615-18. 

W.  M.  Flinders  Petrie.     "The  .Structure  of  Herodotus,  Book  II," 

JHS,  XXVII,  pp.  275  ff. 
A.  Poebel.     "Der  Zehnte  Konig  der  Dynastie  von  Isin,"  OLZ,  1907, 

pp.  461-64. 
.     "Das  zeitliche  Verhaltniss  der  ersten  Dynastie  von  Babylon 

zur  zweiten  Dynastie,"  ZA,  XX,  pp.  229-45. 

"Das    zeitliche    Vcrhliltniss    der    zweiten    Dynastie    der 


grosseren   Konigsliste   zur   dritten    Dynastie,"   ZA,    XXI,    pp. 

162-75. 
H.  Ranke.     "Imnierum  von  Sippar,"  OLZ,  1907,  pp.  207-10. 
.     "Zur    altbabylonischen    Datierungsweise,"    OLZ,    1907, 

pp.    231-34. 
.     "Zur  Konigsliste  aus  Nippur,"  OLZ,  1907,  pp.  109-13. 


ANCIENT  CHRONOLOGY  297 

H.  Radau.     "The  Genealogy  of  the  Kassite  Kings,"  BE,  Ser.  A, 

Vol.  XVII,  Part  I,  pp.  59-71. 
A.  H.  Sayce.     "Notes  on  Assyrian  and  Egyptian  History,"  PSBA, 

XXX,  pp.  13-19. 
P.    Schnabel.     "  Erba-x^dad    und    Karaindas."     OLZ,    1909,    pp. 

54-58. 
.     "  Studien  zur  babylonisch-assyrischen  Chronologic,"  MVG, 

1908,  pp.  i-ioo. 
Fr.  Thureau-Dangin.     "Un  nouveau  roi  de  Hana,"  OLZ,  1908,  p.  93. 

.     "La  genealogie  d'Agum-kakrime,"  OLZ,  1908,  pp.  31-33. 

.     "  Damiq-ilisu  contemporain  de  Sin-muballit, "  OLZ,  1907, 

PP-  256,  257. 

.     " L'emplacement  de  Kis,"  OLZ,  1909,  pp.  204-7. 

.     "Notes  pour  servir  a  la  chronologic  dc  la  dynastic  kassite," 

J  A,  dix.  ser.,  Tome  XI,  pp.  117-34. 
.     "La  deuxieme  dynastie  du  canon  royal  et  la  date  de  la 

fondation  du  royaume  babylonien,"  ZA,  XXI,  pp.  176-87. 
.     "Les   synchronismes   de   I'epoque   d'El-Amarna,"    OLZ, 

1908,  pp.  445-47- 

.     "Kuri-galzu  et  Burna-burias,"  OLZ,  1908,  pp.  275,  276. 

.     "Sargon  I'Ancien,"  OLZ,  1908,  pp.  313-15- 


A.  Ungnad.     "Sumerer  und  Akkader,"  OLZ,  1908,  pp.  62-67. 
.     "Zur  Chronologie  der  Kassiten-Dynastie,  OLZ,  1908,  pp. 

11-17. 
.     "Bel-simanni,  ein  neuer  Konig  Babylons  und  der  Lander," 

OLZ,  1907,  pp.  464-68. 
,     ' '  Die  Chronologie  der  Regierung  Ammiditana's  und  Ammi- 

saduga's,"  BA,  VI,  3,  pp.  1-53. 
-.     "Hallusu,"  OLZ,  1907,  pp.  621,  622. 


R.  Weill.  "Le  sejour  des  Israelites  au  desert  et  Ic  Sinai  dans  la 
relation  primitive,"  REV,  LVII,  pp.  19-54,  194-238. 

E.  H.  Weissbach.  "Zur  Chronologie  der  Bisutun-Inschrift/'  OLZ, 
1908,  pp.  485-91- 

H.  Winckler.  "  Ausgrabungen  in  Boghaz-Koi  im  Sommer  1907," 
MDOG,  No.  35.  

In  the  two  years  that   have  passed  since  the  manuscript  for 
Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  was  sent  to  the  press,  a  surprisingly  large 


298  APPENDIX  II 

number  of  articles  and  books  have  been  written  on  the  subject. 
About  seventy-five  such  articles  have  been  observed  by  the  author. 
And  during  these  two  years  some  really  important  discoveries  bearing 
on  this  subject  have  been  made.  All  these,  together  with  reviews  on 
Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  atid  several  private  letters  from  eminent 
Assyriologists  and  Egyptologists,  have  been  carefully  considered  and 
weighed  by  the  author;  and  it  is  a  pleasure  to  state  that  in  no  case 
has  he  deemed  it  necessary  to  change  or  deviate  from  the  principles 
laid  down  in  that  work  as  those  used  in  building  up  the  chronology. 
It  is  equally  pleasant  to  record  that  the  results  reached,  the  dates 
given,  in  that  volume,  although  often  only  approximate,  still  remain 
within  the  limits  of  high  probability.  That  some  modifications  are 
necessary  after  this  lapse  of  time  is,  of  course,  to  be  expected.  The 
author  is  quite  willing  here  to  record  them,  wherever  the  evidence 
seems  to  require. 

Many  of  the  new  hypotheses  offered  in  this  field  are  such  that  he 
finds  himself  unable  to  accept  them.  Space  forbids  him  even  to 
discuss  most  of  them.  It  is  with  regret  that  he  cannot  accept  the 
scheme  of  ancient  chronology  which  Professor  Petrie,  the  brilliant 
Egyptologist,  advocates,  inserting,  as  he  does,  a  whole  Sothic  cycle, 
(1,460  years)  between  the  Xllth  and  XVIIIth  Egyptian  dynasties. 
Not  only  is  this  against  biblical  evidence,  but  the  scarcity  of  monu- 
ments of  this  period  in  Egypt  precludes  the  elapsing  of  so  long  a 
period.  The  parallel  and  simultaneous  development  of  culture  in 
Egypt  and  Crete  is  so  important  and  of  such  a  nature  that  the  250 
years  which  the  author  postulated  for  this  period  fulfil  all  the  require- 
ments of  archaeology  for  this  important  age.  The  contention 
advanced  in  the  former  book  that  we  deal  here  with  a  number  of 
contemporaiy  dynasties  is  too  important  to  be  overlooked  or  ignored 
by  any  scholar  wishing  to  grasp  the  significance  of  the  Hyksos  rule. 

With  equal  regret  is  recorded  the  inability  to  accept  the  brilliant 
hypothesis  advanced  by  Professor  Lieblein  for  the  interpretation  of 
the  Sothic  dates  in  Egypt,  and  the  chronology  which  he  endeavors 
to  build  thereupon.  With  Professor  Knudtzon  the  present  author 
agrees  that  considerations  of  contemporary  Babylonian  chronology, 
especially  that  of  the  Amarna  period,  make  it  necessary  to  set  it  aside. 
Nor  is  Professor  Lieblein  convincing  in  his  reading  of  the  name  on 


BIBLICAL  CHRONOLOGY  299 

the  verso  of  Papyrus  Ebers.     The  writing  is  peculiar,  it  must  be 
admitted.     But  why  may  it  not  represent  the  throne-name  of  Amen- 

hotep  I  ? 

Here  and  there,  however,  it  has  become  apparent  that  some  modi- 
fication of  the  dates  assigned  to  reigns  and  events  in  the  earlier  book 
are  necessary.  This  was  anticipated  and  emphasized  several  times 
both  in  preface  and  text  too,  when  periods  were  being  treated  where 
material  was  as  yet  too  scanty  for  dogmatic  certainty.  It  is,  therefore, 
surprising  to  find  how  correct  or  how  nearly  correct  most  of  these 
approximations  were.  Of  course,  even  as  yet  there  are  no  final  and 
certain  results  on  these  points.  Let  us,  however,  examine  and  enum- 
erate the  principal  items  of  what  in  these  two  years  has  been  added 
to  our  store  of  knowledge  and  incidentally  treat  some  of  the  questions 
that  in  the  former  book  were  openly  and  purposely  passed  by. 

A.    Biblical  Chronology 
In  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  it  was  definitely  stated  that  in 
treating  of  the  biblical  chronology  of  the  period  there  was  to  be  no 
discussion  of  the  dates  nor  of  the  veracity  and  historicity  of  the  docu- 
ments.    The  data  and  dates  were  merely  recorded  and  it  was  shown 
where  such  dates  landed  us  if  appUed  to  some  certain  historical  date 
like  the  founding  of  Solomon's  temple.     In  regard  to  this  date  there 
has  as  yet  arisen  no  necessity  for  changing  it.     The  present  volume 
may  indicate  somewhat  why  there  could  not  there  be  a  discussion  of 
previous  biblical  dates.     Nor  is  it  as  yet  the  author's  wish  to  express 
any  opinion  upon  the  historicity  of  any  Biblical  dates  therein  given, 
except  those  which  have  been  treated  in  this  volume.     Neither  a 
categorical  af&rmation  nor  a  categorical  denial  of  their  historicity  is 
sufficient.     Each  date,  and  each  document,  must  be  treated  separately 
and  treated  with  the  utmost  care  and  consideration. 
The  Chronology  of  the  Book  of  Judges 
In  regard  to  the  Book  of  Judges  it  is  hoped  that  the  present  volume 
has  shown  that  the  contention  made  in  regard  to  its  dates  was  correct. 
It  needs  qualification,  however,  in  the  following  ways: 

I.  The  even  numbers  of  20,  40,  and  80,  may  in  some  cases,  pos- 
sibly in  all,  be  round  numbers  merely.  Still,  the  summary  of  dates 
up  to  Deborah  shows  that  they  are  approximately  correct,  for  the 


300  APPENDIX  II 

victory  of  Deborah  and  Barak  over  Jabin  belongs  to  the  time  of 
Joshua,  just  subsequent  to  the  Amarna  period,  and  this  is  just  where 
the  chronology  of  Judges  places  it.  If,  then,  one  of  these  round 
numbers  be  found  to  exceed  the  actual  number  of  years  by  one,  two, 
or  more,  we  may  assume  that  the  reverse  prevails  in  others  of  them, 
and  that  their  sum  is  correct  or  approximately  so. 

2.  We  have  found  in  this  present  volume'  that  it  was  only  after 
the  conquest  of  Jabin  by  the  co-operating  forces  of  Joshua  and 
Deborah  that  the  Hel)rews  of  Canaan  were  united  into  one  people, 
into  one  political  unit,  if  such  a  term  may  be  used  in  dealing  with 
those  times.  The  conquest  recorded  in  Judges  was  carried  on  by 
each  tribe  separately.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  judges  living 
before  Deborah,  i.  e.,  Othniel  and  Ehud,  were  not  judges  of  all  Israel, 
but  only  of  their  respective  tribes.  And  if  this  be  so,  these  two  men 
may  have  been  contemporary.  Othniel  was  judge  of  that  Israel 
which  lived  in  the  land  of  Judah,  with  Kiriath-Sepher  as  his 
capital.  Ehud  was  judge  in  Benjamin,  with  Jericho  as  his  place 
of  abode. 

3.  The  Book  of  Judges  affirms  that  Cushar-Arshataim  ruled  the 
sons  of  Israel  for  eight  years,  and  that  then  Othniel  became  judge 
for  forty  years.  This  makes  a  period  of  about  forty-eight  years.  But 
we  have  already  identified  Cushar-Arshataim  with  Artatama  II  of 
Mitani,  who  was,  therefore,  of  Aram-Naharaim.  The  identity  of 
Mitani  and  Midian  can  scarcely  be  questioned.  Now  these  Midia- 
nites  were  settled  in  the  south  in  the  Horite  land,  before  the  death  of 
Moses,  because  Balak,  king  of  Moab  called  in  their  elders  for  assist- 
ance, when  Moses  and  his  army  camped  on  the  border  of  Moab. 
Artatama  and  the  Midianites,  we  must  assume,  would  have  been 
there  for  some  time  prior  to  this  event,  at  least  two  or  three  years, 
because  they  seem  to  be  firmly  settled,  when  Balak  calls  upon  them. 
It  Ues  near  at  hand  to  assume  that  it  was  this  Artatama  and  his 
Mitani  people  in  Mount  Hor  that  deprived  Caleb  of  Hebron  and  made 
Judah  tributary  to  him.  This  would  then  be  the  eight  years'  oppres- 
sion under  Cushar-Arshataim.  Now  Caleb  came  to  Joshua  at 
Gilgal,  ca.  1402,  asking  his  assistance  to  repossess  Hebron,  which 
Joshua  agreed  to,  and  shortly  after  we  find  Joshua  marching  south-/ 

rCf.  p.  131. 


BIBLICAL  CHRONOLOGY  301 

ward  to  conquer  Judah  and  the  Negeb.  He  was  successful  in  this 
campaign,  and  this  means,  then,  that  the  Mit^nians  or  Midianites  in 
Mount  Hor  were  overpowered.  The  Bible  says  indeed  that  Joshua 
conquered  a  king  of  Arad,  or  a  King  Arad,  and  it  is  possible  that  this 
name  may  be  an  abbreviation  of  Artatama.  Anyhow,  the  oppression 
of  Cushar-Arshataim  lasted,  then,  from  about  1410  to  1402,  which, 
viewed  in  this  light,  seems  extremely  probable.  After  the  conquest 
of  the  south,  it  would  be  quite  natural  that  Othniel,  the  renowned 
nephew  of  Caleb,  should  be  appointed  governor  or  "judge"  over 
this  territory.  As  he  was  judge  for  forty  years,  his  judgeship  would 
then  extend  from  ca.  1402  to  ca.  1363  b.  c.  This  is  only  a  few 
years  after  Deborah's  victory  over  Jabin,  1366,  and  it  was  shortly  after 
this  victory  that  the  tribes  gathered  at  Shiloh,  when  Joshua  estab- 
lished with  them  the  well-known  covenant,  and  the  tribes  were 
reunited.  Soon  after  this  Joshua  died  at  the  age  of  no  years.  If 
he  died  in  1363,  he  would  have  been  born  in  1473,  and  would  have 
been  about  twenty-five  years  old,  when  he  was  with  Moses  at  Horeb. 
And  indeed  the  Bible  says  that  Joshua  was  then  a  young  man. 
Othniel's  judgeship  would  thus  partly  cover  the  period  of  Jabin's 
oppression.  Even  this  is  probable.  Of  all  the  tribesmen  that  gathered 
about  Deborah  and  Barak  in  the  battle  agamst  Sisera,  none  came 
from  Judah.  Evidently  because  Jabin's  dominion  did  not  extend 
that  far  south.  For  the  same  reason  none  came  from  the  trans- 
jordanic  tribes,  except  Machir  who  was  at  this  time  settled  in 
Western  Manasseh.  Othniel  continued,  therefore,  as  governor  of 
the  south  until  the  reunion  covenant  at  Shiloh  was  established. 

4.  Eglon,  king  of  Moab,  ruled  Israel  for  eighteen  years,  until 
Ehud  killed  him,  when  the  land  had  rest  for  eighty  years. ^  It  is  not 
stated  that  Ehud  was  judge  for  eighty  years,  nor  should  we  assume 
it.  The  eighty  years  of  peace  merely  indicate  eighty  years  of  Hebrew 
supremacy  around  Jericho.  This  period  must  have  preceded  Jabin's 
oppression,  because  Benjamin  took  part  in  the  war  against  him. 
Ehud's  murder  of  Eglon  would  then  come  about  1465  b.  c,  and 
Eglon's  conquest  about  1483  b.  c.  Both  these  dates  come  before 
the  Exodus.  The  Annals  of  Thutmose  III  assert  that  he  conquered 
the  lands  of  Jacob-el  and  Joseph-el,  both  situated  in  Canaan.   If  these 

I  Judg.    3 :  30. 


302 


APPENDIX  II 


names  mean  anything,  they  affirm  the  fact  that  there  were  Hebrew 
tribes  and  Hebrew  possessions  in  the  land  of  Canaan  not  only  in  pre- 
Joshuanic,  but  even  in  pre-Mosaic  times.  These  people  may  have 
been  among  the  Hyksos  who  had  been  expelled  from  Egypt,  or  they 
may  have  been  descendants  of  the  Hebrews  of  the  days  of  Jacob- 
Israel,  Hebrews  who  had  not  gone  down  to  Egypt  at  all. 


YA-^QEB-EL 
(Jacob) 


P  H 


cm 


(1 


YASAP-EL 

(Joseph) 


(From  W.  Max  Miiller,  Die  Palastinaliste  Thutmosis  III). 


In  any  case  the  Rahab  story  shows  that  the  people  of  Jericho 
when  Joshua  besieged  it  were  acquainted  with  the  Yahweh  worship, 
while  her  name  shows  affinity  with  Egyptian  culture  as  we  would 
expect  at  this  time  when  Canaan  was  made  up  of  dependencies  of 
Egypt.' 

I  Shamgar,  son  of  Anath,  was  also  a  judge  at  this  time.  Several  scholars 
Identify  him  with  Gershom,  son  of  Moses.  This  is  possible,  especially  if  the 
record  was  taken  from  a  cuneiform  tablet,  on  which  the  name  was  written  with 
two  signs  Gir-Sam.  If  this  be  so,  "Son  of  Anath"  denotes  "inhabitant  of 
Anath."  This  Anath  we  would  identify  with  Anathoth,  a  city  a  few  miles  north 
of  Jerusalem.  Nearby  lived  the  seventy-five  priests  that  were  murdered  by  Saul. 
These  priests  wore  linen  ephods  and  were  therefore  under  the  Deuteronomic 
Code.  The  establishment  of  this  code  in  this  vicinity  would  be  quite  natural, 
if  Gershom  (  =  Shamgar),  son  of  Moses,  had  been  judge  there.  Jeremiad 
was   born    in    Anathoth  and  had  his  home   there.     Would   not  this  account 


BABYLONIAN  CHRONOLOGY  S^S 

B.  Babylonian  Chronology 

a)  Thureau-Dangin  has  shown  that  the  Kassite  name  Bi-Hl-ia-shu 
should  be  read  Kas-til-ia-shu. 

h)  Clay  has  shown  that  the  divine  name  En-lil  was  pronounced 
En-lil,  and  not  Bel.     Proper  names  compounded  therewith  should  be 

read  so. 

c)  Hommel  has  reached  the  conclusion  advanced  for  the  first 
time  in  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  that  the  name  Su-li-li  is  a  later 
abbreviation  or  reading  of  Sumu-la-Uu. 

d)  Eduard  Meyer  has  agreed  with  the  date  the  present  author 
advanced  for  Sargon  of  Akkad,  placing  him  ca.  2550  b.  c. 

e)  Thureau-Dangin  has  confirmed  our  argument  that  there  was 
a  lacuna  between  Dynasties  A  (of  Babylon)  and  C  (Kassite),  and  he 
has  placed  Dynasty  B  (of  Sea-land)  contemporary  with  both  the 
dynasties  A  and  C,  and  independent  in  the  interval  between  these 

two  dynasties. 

J)  Winckler  has  discovered  at  Boghaz-koi  a  Hittite  tablet,  written 
in  Babylonian,  in  which  Hattusil,  king  of  the  Hittites,  informs  a 
Babylonian  king  who  is  the  successor  of  Kadashman-Turgu  that  he 
(Hattusil)  has  concluded  a  treaty  with  the  king  of  Egypt.  This 
Babylonian  king  is  evidently  Kudur-EnUl,  although  his  name  does 
not  appear  in  this  letter,^  and  the  letter  was  evidently  written  in  his 
second  or  third  year.  Now  we  know,  from  the  Egyptian  monuments, 
that  this  treaty  between  Egypt  and  the  Hittites  was  closed  in  the 
twenty-first  year  of  Ramses  H.  We  have  here,  then,  a  most  welcome 
synchronism.  The  twenty-first  year  of  Ramses  H  is  the  second  or 
third  year  of  Kudur-Enlil.  This  makes  necessary  the  placing  of  the 
Kassite  dynasty  a  few  years  later,  some  ten  to  twenty  years,  than  was 
done  in  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  L  When  that  book  was  written 
there  was  no  evidence  whatever  to  show  that  Dynasty  C  (Kassite) 
did  not  wholly  precede  Dynasty  D  (of  Pashe) .     The  date  of  the  latter 

for  the  many  similarities  in  language  between  Jeremiah  and  Deuteronomy, 
even  in  such  parts  of  Jeremiah  (e.  g.,  chap.  7)  that  were  delivered  before  Deuter- 
onomy was  discovered  ?  The  peculiarities  in  language  and  thought  of  Jeremiah 
reflect  the  dialect  and  traditions  of  Anathoth  and  Nob. 

I  The  beginning  of  the  letter,  where  we  would  naturally  e.xpect  to  find  the 
name,  has  been  broken  away. 


304  APPENDIX  II 

is  certain,  but  judging  from  the  Kuclurru  inscriptions  of  the  dynasty, 
dealing,  as  they  do  so  frequently,  with  property  in  southern  Babylonia, 
it  is  safe  to  conclude  that  this  dynasty  began  to  rule  at  first  only  in 
southern  Babylonia,  or,  more  definitely,  over  Isin,  It  may  therefore 
have  been  easily  contemporary  with  the  last  twenty  years  of  Dynasty 
C,  when  we  know  the  Kassite  kings  to  have  been  very  weak.  From 
considerations  which  we  shall  take  up  in  a  moment  it  seems  probable 
that  Ramses  II  should  be  placed  some  years  later  than  was  done  in 
Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  and  this  fact,  together  with  the  synchro- 
nism just  discussed,  makes  it  necessary  to  place  the  Kassite  dynasty 
of  Babylon  some  twenty  years  later  than  was  before  proposed. 

g)  Thureau-Dangin  has  proposed  the  same  date  as  was  given 
in  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  for  the  beginning  of  Dynasty  A  of 
Babylon,  i.  e.,  2233  b.  c.  There  could  be  no  better  affirmation  than 
that  of  this  eminent  Assyriologist,  especially  as  his  conclusions  were 
reached  by  entirely  independent  research,  only  a  few  months  after 
Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  was  published. 

h)  Thureau-Dangin  and  King  have  shown  that  the  kings  known 
as  Sharru-gi  and  Shar-gani-sharri  were  not  identical.  The  former 
was  King  of  Kish.  The  latter  was  father  of  Naram-Sin,  and  king  in 
Agade.  In  later  times  the  two  names  were  confused,  and  the  two 
kings  identified,  precisely  as  we  have  suggested  was  the  case  with 
Mouses  and  Moses  or  with  Horeb  and  Sinai. 

Furthermore,  Thureau-Dangin  has  shown  that  Kish  was  located 
west  of  the  Euphrates,  and  we  believe  that  it  was  the  predecessor  of 
the  Kash-di  or  Kal-di  land. 

C.  Egyptian  Chronology 

a)  Eduard  Meyer  has  accepted  Sethe's  reading  of  the  Turin 
Papyrus  in  regard  to  the  last  king  of  the  Xlth  Dynasty.  Breasted 
has  later  accepted  the  same  interpretation.  These  scholars  have 
thus  changed  their  views  and  reached  the  same  result  in  regard  to 
the  close  of  that  dynasty  as  was  presented  in  Ancient  Chronology, 
Part  I.  Naville  had  assumed  that  Neb-hepet-Re-Mentuhotep  and 
Neb-hru-Re-Mentuhotcp  were  identical.  This  seemed  reasonable. 
But  Naville  has  later  changed  his  view,  and  Hall  and  Meyer  regard 
them  as  two  different  kings.  This  is  possible,  of  course.  But  the 
Turin  Papyrus  asserts  that  there  were  only  six  Theban  kings  of 


EGYPTIAN  CHRONOLOGY  3^5 

Dynasty  XL     There  is,  as  yet,  no  reason  to  doubt  this.     Of  course 
Manetho  says  there  were  sixteen  kings  of  this  dynasty,  and  Eduard 
Meyer  enumeraties  five  Intefs  and  six  Mentuhoteps.     But  it  is  not 
certain  that  all  of  them  Uved  in  Thebes,  and  the  Turin  Papyrus 
may  be  quite  correct  in  its  statement  that  there  were  but  six  who  ruled 
in  Thebes.     May  not  some  of  them  have  Uved  in  Gebelen  ?    The 
Turin  Papyrus  says  that  the  Xlth  Dynasty  lasted  i6o  years,  while 
Manetho  accords  it  only  forty-three  years.     Breasted  insists  upon  the 
1 60  years,  and  dates  the  Xth  Dynasty  of  Heracleopolis  back  of  these 
160  years  of  the  Xlth  Dynasty.     This  cannot  be  correct.     There 
is  no  question  that  the  Turin  Papyrus  is  correct  in  giving  160  years 
to  the  dynasty  in  Thebes,  but  it  is  yet  to  be  shown  that  the  dynasty 
reigned  over  all  Egypt  for  any  such  period.     On  the  contrary,  as  was 
pointed  out,  it  is  practically  certain  that  it  was  the  next  to  the  last 
king    of    the    dynasty,    Neb-hru-Re-Mentuhotep,    who    overthrew 
Dynasty  X  of  Heracleopolis.     The  forty-three  years  of  Manetho  are 
ample  time  for  the  period  from  the  fall  of  the  Xth  Dynasty  to  that  of 
the  Xllth.     Meyer's  and  Breasted's  chronologies  should  therefore 
be  lowered  117  years  for  dates  back  of  the  Xlth  Dynasty.     This 
can  hardly  be  disputed,  and  it  is  important  enough  to  demand  con- 
sideration. 

b)  A.  Gardiner  has  shown  that  the  Egyptian  month-names  are  de- 
rived from  the  names  of  the  chief  festivals  occurring  in  those  months. 
He  has  further  shown  that  Mesore,  formed  from  Meswt-Re,  "Birth 
of  Re,"  was  in  the  Middle  and  New  empires,  the  first  month,  not  the 
last  month  of  the  year.  There  was,  therefore,  a  calendar  reform  in 
Egypt  sometime  between  the  beginning  of  the  XlXth  Dynasty  and 
the  Ptolemaic  period. 

In  the  Middle  and  New  empires  the  civil  new-year  began,  then, 

with  Mesore. 

c)  Professor  Petrie  has  suggested  that  the  36  years  which  Man- 
etho and  Josephus  ascribe  to  Oros,  may  designate  the  duration  of 
the  Aton-faith,  and  not  the  length  of  reign  of  Amenhotep  IV.  ^  This 
seems  possible,  especially  as  his  seventeenth  year  is  yet  the  highest 
on  the  monuments.  It  may,  therefore,  be  that  he  did  not  reign 
longer  than  17  years,  and  of  that  period  the  6  years  at  the  beginning 
of  his  reign  was  a  coregency  with  his  father  Amenhotep  III.     The 


3o6  APPENDIX  II 

36  years  which  Josephus  ascribes  to  Oros  would  then  begin  with  the 
accession  of  Amenhotep  IV  (Ikhnaton)  in  1407,  and  extended  to 
1371.  The  latter  date  comes  two  years  before  the  death  of  Tutanekh- 
amon,  and  we  know  that  this  king  changed  from  the  Aton  to  the 
Amon-religion  shortly  before  his  death.  The  reign  of  Haremhab, 
extending  over  all  Egypt  would,  on  this  account,  have  lasted  for 
twenty-four  years,  1345-21  b.  c. 

d)  In  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  we  assumed,  following  Jose- 
phus, that  the  reign  of  Seti  I  was  included  in  that  of  Ramses  II. 
We  called  attention  also  to  some  indications  of  this  on  the  monu- 
ments of  Ramses  II.  It  is,  however,  possible,  that  this  means  only 
that  Ramses  II  was  appointed  crown-prince  in  early  childhood. 
The  monuments  of  Seti  seem  to  show  that  his  reign  was  entirely 
independent  of  that  of  Ramses  II.  Still  he  could  not  have  reigned 
for  any  considerable  length  of  time.  His  ninth  year  occurs  on  the 
monuments,  and  nine  years  were  probably  the  duration  of  his  reign, 
1319-1310  B.  c.  This  makes  it  necessary  to  lower  the  succeeding 
dates  of  the  Nineteenth  Dynasty  with  nine  years. 

For  more  minute  details  of  this  reconstruction,  reference  is  made 
to  the  synchronistic  table,  hereto  appended.^ 

I  Professor  Erman,  in  a  private  correspondence,  has  called  the  author's 
attention  to  the  statement  on  p.  259  of  the  Ancient  Chronology,  Part  I,  in  regard 
to  the  two  ancient  Egyptian  legends.  Of  course  it  was  not  meant  that  these 
legends  appear  on  the  Egyptian  monuments,  but  merely  that  they  dealt  with 
the  early  history  of  Egypt.  However,  the  expression  is  liable  to  misunderstanding 
and  the  opportunity  is  here  taken  to  call  attention  to  it. 


SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE 


3o8 


APPENDIX  II 
SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE 


Sea-Land 

Babylonia 

Assyria 

I 

2 

3 

Sharru-gi 

Dynasty  of  Ki-en-gi 

Enshagkushanna 

Assyria  settled 
Semites 

Kikia 
Aiishpia 

Dynasty  of  Kish 

Ma-an-ish-tu-su  ca.  3050 

Uhig 

Sharru-gi 

Mesilim 

Lugal-tar-zi 

Ur-zag-e 

Lugal 

Uru-mu-jish 

4 
5 
6 

7 
8 

9 

10 

II 

12 

Dynasty  of  Telloh 

Engilsa 

Uriikagina  I,  ca.  3050 

Lugal-shag-engur 

Ur-Nind 
Akurgal 

Eannadu 

Enannadu  I,  ca.  2800 
Entemena 
Enannadu  II 
Enliltarzi 

Lugalanda 

Uriikagina  II,  ca.  2675 

Lugalushumgal 

Ur-ba-u 
Ur-gar 

Nam-makh-mi 
Urninsun 

Gudea 

Urningirsu 

Ur-ab-ba 

by 

13 

14 

15 
i6 

17 

Dynasty  of  Gishkhu 

E-abzu 
Ush 

Enakalli 
Ur -I  urn  ma 
Ukush 

i8 
19 

20 
21 
22 

23 
24 

25 

26 

27 
28 

29 

30 

Dynasty  of  Erech 

Lugalzaggisi,  ca.   2675 

Lugalkigubnidudu 
Lugalkisalsi 

Dynasty  of  Agade 

Shar-gani-SJiarri,  ca.  2550 

Nardni-Sin,  ca.  2525 

Bingani-Sharri,  ca.  2485 
Ubil-Ishtar 

31 

32 

33 

Dynasty  of  Ur 

Ur-Engur,  2477-59 
Dungi,     2459-01 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE 
SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE 


309 


Bible 

Egypt 

Miscellaneous 

Birth  of  Arpachshad, 

Predynastic  Kings 

I 

3324 

Dynasties  I-IV 

2 

Birth  of  Cainan,  ca.  3 191 

ca.  3285-2729 

3 

4 

Birth  of  Shelah,  ca.  3062 

5 
6 

7 
8 

Birth  of  Eber,  ca.  2933 

9 

10 

II 

12 

13 

Beginning  of  Sothic 

14 

Birth  of  Peleg,  ca.  2800 

Cycle,  2781-4 

15 

Dynasty  V 

16 

tlserkaf,     2729-2701 

17 

Sahure,  2791-2688 

18 

Birth  of  Reu,  ca.  2671 

Nefererkare,    2688-2668 

Temple  of  Baal  at  Tyre, 
ca.  2730 

19 

Shepseskare,    2668-2661 

20 

Akauhor,  2661-2641 

21 

Nuserre,  2641-2597 

22 

Menkauhor,  2597-88 

23 

Dedkare,   2588-44 

24 

Birth  of  Serug,  ca.  2540 

Unas,  2544-11 

Lasirab    of    Gutium 

25 

Dynasty  VI 

26 

Teti,  251 1-2497 

27 

Userkaf,  2497-81 

28 

Pepi  I,  2497-44 

Anu-Banini  of  Lulubu 

29 
30 

31 
32 

Mernere  7,  2444-37 

33 

310 


APPENDIX  II 
SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE— Continued 


Sea-Land 

Babylonia 

Assyria 

34 
35 
36 

Bur-Sin  I,  2401-2392 
Gimil-Sin,    2392-85 
Ibi-Sin,  2385-60 

Galu-ka-zal 
Ur-lama 

Al-la 
Arad-Nannar 

37 
38 

39 

40 
41 

42 
43 

44 
45 

46 
47 

48 

49 
50 
51 
52 

53 

Dynasty  of  Isin 

Ishbi-Ura,  2360-28 

Gimil-ilish  u,  2328-18 

Idin-Dagan,  2318-2297 
Ishme-Dagan,  2297-77 

Libit-Ishtar,   2277-66 
Ur-Ninib,  2266-38 

Bur-Sin,   2238-17 
Iter-ka-sha,  2217-12 

,  2212-05 

Sin{?) ,  2205-04 

Bel-bdni,   2204-2180 
Zambia,  2180-77 

,    2177-72 

Ae ,  2172-68 

Sin-mdgir,  2168-57 

Ddmiq-ilushn,     2157-35 

Dynasty  A  of  Babylon 

Sumu-abi,   2233-18 
Sumu-la-ilu,  22 18-21 83 

Zabu,  2183-69 

Apil-Sin,  2169-51 

Sin-m  uballit,     2 1 5 1  -3 1 

Sin-muballit,   vassal, 

2131-21 
Hammurabi,  vassal, 

2121-09 
Hammurabi,  king,  2109- 

2066 
Samsu-iluna,    2066-31 

lUi-shuma,  ca.  2250 
Erishum,  ca.  2230 

Ihinum,  ca.  2200 

Dynasty  of  Belatares 

Shar-ken-kdte-Ashir 

Bel-tdbi,  ca.  2150 

54 

Sin-muballit,  2135-31 

Bel-kabi  ca.  2130, 

55 

Eri-Aku,  2131-2079 

56 

57 
58 

Dynasty  B  of  Sea -Land 

Iln-ma-ilu,  2079-2019 

Shamshi-Adad  I,  ca. 
2100 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TAB'LE.— Continued 


3" 


Bible 


Egypt 


Miscellaneous 


Birth  of  Nahor,  ca.  241 1 


Pepi  11,  2437-2343 


Mernere  II,  2343-42 
Nitokris,  2342-30 


Dynasty  VII,  2330 


Dynasty  VIII 

of  Memphis,  2330-2230 


Dynasty  IX 

of  Heracleopolis,   2330- 
2230 


Kudur-N'ankhundi  of 
Elam 

Ninus  and  Semiramis 


Birth  of  Terah,  ca.  2233 


Dynasty  X 

of   Heracleopolis,  2230- 
2043 


Belus  conquers  Assyria 


Birth  of  Ahram    2165 


Abram  in  Canaan,  2090 

Ahram  in  Egypt,  ca. 
2084-81 


Dynasty  XI 

Wahanekh-Intef,     2162- 
2112 

Nakhtneh-  Tepnofer- 
Intef,  211 2-2086 


Sanekh-ib-tawi-Mentu- 
hotep,  ca.  2100-2086 


Nebhapetre-Mentuhotep, 
ca.  2086-77 


Kudur-Mabug,  ca.  2140 


Chedor-Laonwr  of  Elam 


First  Hyksos  settlement, 

ca.  2084 
Kassites    in    Babylonia, 

ca.  2058 


312 


APPENDIX  II 
SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE— Continued 


59 
60 

61 
62 

63 

64 
65 
66 
67 
68 

69 
70 

71 
72 

73 

74 

75 
76 

77 
78 

79 

80 

81 
82 
83 
84 


Sea-Land 


Ki-an-ni-hi,    201 9-1 963 


Damqi-ilishu,   1 963-3 7 

Qadushshi,   1 93 7-2 2 
iV/i/^  //)«/,  1 9  2  2  - 1 8 98 


Gulkishar,  1898-43 


Babylonia 


Kir-gal-dara-bar,    1 843- 
1793 


A dara-kalama,    1 793-65 
E-kur-id-anna,    1765-39 

Melamma,  1739-31 


Abesliu,  2031-06 


Ammi-ditana,    2006-1 981 
Ammi-zadugga,  1981-60 


SamsH-ditana,     1960-29 


Assyria 


Dynasty  C  of  Kassites 
Gandish,   1762-45 
/l^ww,  1745-25 

Kashtiliash  I,  1724-02 


Ishme-Dagan  I 


Ishme-Dagan    II,    ca. 
1850 


Shamshi-Adad  II,   ca. 
1830 


SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE— Continued 


313 


Bible 

Egypt 

Miscellaneous 

Battle  of  Dan,  ca.  2080 
Birth  of  Ishmael,  2078 

Nebtawire-Mentiihotep, 
ca.  2077-62 

Neb-hrure-Mentuhotep , 

ca    2062-12 
Sanekhkare-Mentuhotep , 

ca.  2012-02 

Dynasty  XVI 

Shepherds,  ca.  2084-1566 

59 
60 

Birth  of  Isaac,  2065 
Marriage  of  Isaac,  2046 

Death  of  Sarah,  2022 

Fall  of  Dynasty  X,  2043 

61 
62 

63 

Birth  of  Jacob,  2006 
Death  of  Abraham,  1990 
Marriage  of  Esau,  1967 

Dynasty  XII 

Amenemhet  I,  2006-1986 
Sesostris  I,  1986-40 

Amenemhet  II,  1944-02 

Sesostris  II,  1 906-1 887 
Sesostris  III,   1887-54 

Amenemhet  III,  1854-06 

Amenemhet  IV,   1806- 

1797 

Sebeknefrure,  1797-93 

Dynasty  XIII 

of  Diospolis,  1 986-1 533 

64 
65 
66 

67 

Death  of  Ishmael,  1943 

Dynasty  XVII 

of  Thebes,  1 944-1 793 

68 

Jacob  in  Haran,  ca.  1931 
Marriage   of   Jacob,  ca. 

1924 
Birth  of  Joseph,  191 7 
Jacob    in    Canaan,    ca. 

1911 
Joseph   sold    to    Egypt, 

Hittites  in  Babylonia 

Birth  of  Sebek-khu,  191 7 
Asiatics    visit    Khnum- 
hotep  II,  1 901 

69 
70 

71 
72 

73 

JosephgovemoT  in  Egypt 

1887, 
/aco6  in  Egypt,  1877 
Death  oijJacob,  i860 
Death jof  Joseph,  1807 

Dynasty  XV 

of  Memphis,  1 887-1 569 

74 

75 
76 

77 
78 

79 

Hyksos  Kings 

Scrlatis,  1826-07 

Bnon,  1807-1763 
Apakhnan,    1763-26 

Dynasty  XIV 

of  Sebennitos,  1 793-1 569 

80 
81 

Dynasty  XVI 

of  IliopoUs,  1 793-1 579 

82 
83 
84 

314 


APPENDIX  II 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE.— Continued 


Sea-Land 

Babylonia 

Assyria 

85 

Ae-gdmil,  1 731 -11 

Dic{?)-shi,    1 709-1 693 

86 

Abi-rattash,  1694- 
Tashshigunmiash 

87 

88 

Agnni-kakrime 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

Kadashman-kharbe   I 

95 

Kuri-galzu  I 

96 

Meli-shipak  I 

A  shur-bel-nisheshu 

97 

Kara-indash  I 

A  sh  ur-nddin-akM 

98 

Kadasliman-Enlil  I 

99 

[-  -]-  buriash 

100 

Kuri-galzu  II 

Puzur-Ashiir 

lOI 

Burna-buriash,  ca.  1386- 
61 

Erba-Adad 

102 

Kara-indash  II,  ca.  1361- 
58 

Ashur-uballit 

103 

(Nazibuga^,  usurper,  ca. 
1358) 

104 

Kurt-galzuIII,  1358-34 

Bel-nirari 

105 

Nazi-mar  utlash,  1334-08 

Arik-dtn-ili 

106 

Kadashman-turgu, 
1 308-1 291 

Adad-nirari 

197 

Kadashman-Enlil  II, 
1291-85  _ 

Shabnaneser  I 

108 

Kudur-Enlil,     1285-77 

109 

Shagarakti-Sh  uriash , 
1277-64 

rukulti-Ni}iib  I 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TABl^E.— Continued 


315 


Bible 

Egypt 

Miscellaneous 

Apophis,    1 726-1665 
I  annas,  1665-15 

Aseth,   1 61 5-1 566 
Expulsion  of  Hyksos,  ca. 
1566 

85 
86 

Dynasty  XVII 

of  HermopoUs,  1793- 
1533 

87 
88 

Dynasty  XVIII 

Ahtnose,     1 579-1 554 

Amenhotep  I,  1554-33 
Thutmose  I,   1533-08 

Thutmose  II,  1522-09 
Hatshepsut,  1 509-1 486 
Thutmose  III,  1486- 

1473 
Thutmose  III,  whole 

reign,  1 504-1450 
Amenhotep  II,  1473-47 
Thutmose  IV,  1447-38 

Amenhotep  III,  1438- 
02 

Amenhotep,  IV  (Ikhna- 

ton)  1 407-1 390 
Sakare,  1390-78 

Tutanekhamon,  1378-69 

Ai,  1369-57 
Akerkheres,    1357-45 

89 
90 

Birth  of  Moses,  ca.  1526 

Flight  of  Moses,  ca.  i486 

Eglon  of  Moab,  1483-65 

Ehud,  1 465-1 385 

Exodus,  1447 
Cushar-Arshathaim, 

1410-02 
Death  of  Moses,  1407 

War  in  Syria 

War  in  Syria 

Kings  of  Mitani 

Artatama  I 
Shutarna 

Dushratta:    Mattiuaza 

91 
92 

93 
94 
95 

96 

97 

98 
99 

100 

Artatama  II 

Conquest  begins,  1407 

Meeting  of  Joshua  and 

Caleb,  1402 
Oihniel,  ca.  1 402-1 363 

Jahin,  1385-65 
Deborah,  1365 

Hittite  Kings 
Supliliuma 
Mursil:  Arandas 

Mutallu 

lOI 

102 

103 

104 
105 

Covenant  at  Shiloh,  ca. 

1364 
Death  of  Joshua,  ca.  1363 

Dynasty  XIX 

Haremhab,  1345-21 

Ramses  I,  1 321-19 
Seti  I,  1 31 9-10 

106 

107 

108 
109 

;i6 


APPENDIX  II 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE.— Continued 


Sea-Land 

Babylonia 

Assyria 

110 

Kashtiliash  II,  1264-56 

III 

Enlil-nddin-shum,  1256- 
54 

Ashur-ndzir-pal  I 

112 

Kadashnian-kharbe  II, 
1254-53 

Tukidti-Ashur 

113 

Adad-shum-iddin,  1253- 

47 

Bel-kudur-nzur 

114 

Adad-shum-uzur,  1247- 

17 
Meli-shipak  II,  1217-02 

Ninib-apil-Ekur 

115 

Dynasty  D  of  Pashe 

116 

Marduk ,  1 205-1 187 

Marduk-apil-iddin, 
1 202-1 189 

117 

Zamama-sJium-iddin, 
1189-88 

118 

Enlil-shum-[iddin\, 
1188-85 

Asliur-ddn 

119 

120 

121 

,  1 187-81 

Mutakkil-Nushu 

122 

---'} 

123 

^  1181-CC.  1146 

Ashur-resh-ilhi 

124 

125 

Nebuchadrezzar    I,    ca. 
1146-30 

126 

Enlil-nddin-aplu,  1 1 30-1 6 

Tiglath-pileser  I 

127 

Marduk-nddin-akhe, 
1 1 16-1094 

ca.  1 1 25-1085 

128 

Marduk-akhe-erba, 
1094-93 

129 

Marduk-shapik-zer-mdti, 
1093-81 

Ashur-hel-kala 

130 

{A dad-apil-iddin ,    1 08 1 ) 

131 

Nabd-nddin,     1081-73 

132 

Dynasty  E  of  Sea-Land 

133 

Simmash-skipak,    1073- 

55 

134 

Bel-mu-kin,  1055-54 

' 

135 

KashshH-nddin-aklie, 
1054-51- 

Shamshi-Adad  III 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TABLE 

SYNCHRONISTIC  TAB'LE— Continued 


317 


Bible 

Egypt 

Miscellaneous 

Midianites,  1325-18 

Ramses  II,  1 310-1244 

Hattusil:  Hittite  treaty, 

no 

Gideon,  i 318-1278 

1290 
Dudchalia 

III 

Abimelech,  1278-75 

Merneptah,   1244-25 

Amenmeses,  ca.  1225-08 

Siptah,  ca.  1208-02 
Seti  II,  ca.  1 202-1 200 

Armanta 

112 

Tola,  1275-52 
J  air,    1252-30 

Hebrew  settlement  in 
Egypt 

"3 

114 

Invasion,  1230-12 
Jephthah,  1212-06 

Kidinkhutrash  of  Elam 

115 
116 

Ibzan,  1 206-1 1 99 

117 

Elon,  1199-89 

Thouris,   1 200-1 183 

Asiatic  rule  in  Egypt 

118 

Fall  of  Troy,  11 83 

119 

Dynasty  XX 

Nakhtset,  1 183-81 

120 

Abdon,  1 189-81 

Heraclides  in  Lydia,  ca. 

121 

Philistines,    1 1 8 1  -4 1 
Samson,  1141-21 

Ramses  III,  1 181-50 

Ramses  IV,  1150-44 
Ramses  V,  1144-ca.  11 34 

Ramses  VI    \ 

Ramses  VII       ca.  1134- 

1190-    t^"'^ 
Heb.  oppression  in  Egypt 
Philistine    migration 

Exodus  of  Hebrews  from 
Egypt,  ca.  1 144. 
Heb.  conquest  of  Canaan 

122 
123 
124 

125 
126 

Eli,  1121-1081 

Shadi-Teshup,  ca.  11 25 

127 

1113 
Ramses  VIII  ' 

128 

Ramses  IX,   ca.    1113- 

129 

Philistines,    1 081 -61 

1092 

Ramses  X    ) 

Ramses  XI  \  ""■  ■°9^^" 

130 
131 
132 
133 

Samuel,  1061-49 

Ramses  XII,  ca.  1077-50 

134 
135 

INDICES 


INDICES 

A.     BIBLICAL  REFERENCES 


Genesis 

Genesis 

Genesis 

I 

49  bis 

25:  8,  9    24 

47:11         149 

i:   I 

50 

18 

158 

48:   3         47 

26 

22,  23 

19 

45 

22         241 

2:   4 

55 

20 

45 

49  ••   6         53 

3:22 

23 

26c 

45 

29-32  24 

5 

51 

26:   I 

135 

so:   7-9     242 

5'   I 

55 

6-23  135 

10,  II  242 

22 

22,  23 

26-33  135 

12,  13  24 

24 

22,  23 

32 

^35      ,. 

15-21  135 

6:   9 

22,  23 

34 

46,  54  bts 

26         247 

13 

23 

27:46 

51 

7:11 

21 

28:   3 

47 

Exodus 

24 

20 

9 

46,  54  bis 

I :    1-7     148 

8:   3,  4 

20 

29:24 

45 

2-5    54 

4 

21 

30:21 

45,  46 

5        140 

9 

49  bis 

31:    I 

53 

II        149 

9:16 

23 

186 

46 

11&       148 

10 

17,  54  i>i5 

32:28 

48 

2:23-25  148 

10:^1 

51 

33--I7 

242 

3:   I        171 

2-5 

17,  18 

35  ••   8 

135 

12        171 

2 

19 

10 

48 

18        171 

22 

18 

II 

47 

6:    I         47 

22-3] 

[  51 

13 

24 

2        47  bis,  49 

II 

54  bis 

18 

248 

bis 

II  ••i7 

23 

21 

242 

9         276 

10 

51 

36:   I- 

14  46,  54  bis 

14-26  194 

13:12 

45 

31- 

39  34 

7:14-18  274 

14 

25 

31 

34 

19         274 

14:   6 

167 

37 

i35>  236 

20a       274 

•  >s  18 

25 

37:   2 

51-  236 

2ob-2iab 

15:    4 

53 

2a 

46 

274 

16:    7 

158 

41:38- 

40  135 

2IC-22a 

17 

49 

II 

240 

274 

17:    I 

47 

41- 

■43  239 

226-25 

2 

47  >  49 

45- 

50  240 

274 

5 

48 

46 

46,  236 

8:   1-4     274 

22 

24 

42:   6 

247 

5-7     274 

19:29 

45  bis 

43:14 

47 

8-1506 

20:   i-i 

8  135 

45  ••13 

53 

274 

I 

158 

27 

135 

15c       274 

3 

135 

46:   5 

135 

16-19  274 

6 

135 

6 

53 

20-32  274 

7 

135 

8-25  54 

27         171. 

17 

135 

28- 

-34  142 

9:   1-7     274 

21:22-34  135 

47:   I- 

-12  143,  144 

8-12  274 

25 

135 

5- 

-II  46 

13-35  274 

321 


322 

INDICES 

Exodus 

Exodus 

Exodus 

lo:   I-20 

274 

21 

:i5 

III 

28:   4 

221 

21-29 

274 

16 

III,  191 

6 

221 

11:    I-IO 

274 

17 

191 

42, 

43 

102 

12:11-13 

274 

18,  19 

III 

29:   9 

lOI 

14 

102 

22,  23 

III 

28 

102 

21-23 

274 

23-25 

191 

30:   6 

180 

25-27 

274 

24,  25 

112 

21 

102 

29-42 

274 

28,  29 

112 

26 

180 

37,38 

153, 

169, 

30-22 

"3 

31:   7 

180 

195 

22 

:    I 

113 

18 

179 

13:   4 

170 

2 

113 

32:   8 

96 

10 

102 

5 

113 

15, 

16 

169,  178 

17,  18 

153 

7,8 

114 

19 

178 

18 

152 

9 

114 

20 

96 

20 

158 

10-12 

114 

25 

105 

20,  21 

153. 

154 

14 

"5 

27 

96 

14:   1-7 

154 

16,  17 

191 

29 

105,  172 

2 

169 

18 

33, 115, 189 

30-34 

193 

8,9 

154 

19 

191 

33-  7- 

II 

193 

10,  II 

155 

21 

191 

34 

49,  92,  98 

15-17 

155 

25 

191 

34:   I 

96,  178 

19-31 

155- 

■157 

26,  27 

191 

9 

96 

15:22 

157, 

158, 

29 

189 

10 

97,  98 

169 

31 

189 

II 

98 

27 

167, 

171 

23 

:    1-3 

115,  116, 

12 

97 

16:   I 

167, 

169 

191 

13- 

■26 

92 

17:   I 

171 

4 

191 

17 

191 

6 

171 

6-8 

116 

18 

IQI 

14 

99 

10,  II 

191 

22 

21  bis 

18:15,  16 

103 

14-17 

103,  191 

26 

191 

19,  20 

103 

15 

191 

27, 

28 

97,  98,  172 

19:   I 

169 

16 

21  bis 

28 

178 

2 

172 

19 

189,  191 

29 

179 

3 

92 

20-33 

94 

35 

179 

5 

92,  1 

:o4 

24 

:    I 

94 

39:35 

180 

6 

107 

3 

94,  104 

40:  3 

I  So 

8 

93,  104 

4 

95,  104 

5 

180 

16 

172 

4-8 

172 

20, 

21 

180 

24 

93 

5-8 

193 

20:   2-17 

93, 

94,  97, 

7 

92,  94 

Leviticus 

98 

8 

94 

I 

27 

4 

191 

9-1 1 

172 

i:  3- 

-6 

•7 

19 

93 

II 

95 

46 

21 

93 

12 

95,  97,  178 

2- 

■5 

27 

226-26 

12-15* 

J 

2 

33 

94 

172 

3:17 

102 

23 

191 

16 

169 

6:   8- 

-7 

:34 

24 

107, 

188 

18 

169 

46 

21 

89,   ' 

92,  94, 

38 

97 

14- 

18 

32,  70 

98,  102 

25 

179 

22 

102 

21:    I 

102 

25 

:i6 

180 

7:32- 

34 

190 

2-11 

189 

2J,  22 

180 

34 

102 

12 

191 

26 

••33,  34 

180 

36 

102 

13.  14 

189 

27 

:20,  21 

102,  180 

8:   7 

221 

- 

INDICES 

32- 

evitieus 

Leviticus 

Numbers 

8:   8 

222 

24:   1-4 

30 

16:32 

53 

lo:   9 

102 

3,4 

102 

18:    1-20 

190 

13- 

-15 

102 

5-9 

30 

2 

199 

II :   2- 

-19 

31.  190 

9 

102 

8-24 

36,  102 

40 

189 

17 

191 

12,  13 

189 

i3> 

14  31,  190 

19,  20 

1191 

20 

31 

16:29 

102 

21 

191 

23 

102 

31 

102 

25 

31 

19:    2 

102 

34 

102 

25:1-7 

31,  191 

26:   I 

170 

17- 

■26 

30 

6 

54 

14-21 

38 

17:    2 

30 

8-13 

31 

22-29 

200 

7 

32,  70,  102 

9 

30 

29 

170 

8, 

9 

188 

32,  33  31 

21:   1-3 

120 

15 

189 

35-37 

191 

14,  15  137 

18 

31.  46 

39-46 

189 

25-34 

257 

18:   8 

190 

44 

54 

22:  4 

268 

20 

190 

26 

79 

25:1-5 

126 

21 

33,  70,  190 

26:   I 

190 

26:   4 

125 

23 

lOI 

9 

49 

27:21 

222 

19:   4 

191 

30 

32 

28 

27,  36,   4I; 

9. 

10 

190 

31 

26 

191 

15 

191 

27:3^^33 

190 

28:29 

22 

19 

190 

29 :    1-6 

21 

21 

30 

Numbers 

30:    2 

190 

22 

30 

I 

125,  197, 

16 

102 

26 

189 

198 

31:21 

102 

28 

190 

i:   I 

170 

32:   3 

257 

31 

34,  189 

3,  4 

201 

13 

173 

33, 

34 

191 

3:15 

198 

37 

257 

35> 

36 

190 

20 

276 

33'   5-8c 

157,  158, 

20 

31.  46 

22-43 

200 

169 

20:   2- 

•5 

33,  70, 190 

4:  5 

180,  182 

38 

173 

6 

34,  189 

36-48 

200 

35:   3 

53 

9 

191 

5:    1-4 

190 

9-29 

189 

10 

190 

6:   I-2I 

190,  234 

16 

191 

II 

190 

7:89 

182 

15 

191 

9:   I 

169 

Deuteronomy 

27 

32,  34,  189 

10:   8 

102 

i:    2 

172 

21:   I 

30 

II 

170,  180 

3 

173 

ia-15 

30 

29 

257 

4 

257 

17 

30 

33 

172,  180 

5 

77 

21 

30 

12:   1-15 

172 

28 

72 

23 

22,  191 

13 

193 

44-46 

121 

23:   I- 

■44 

30 

15 

190 

45 

123 

6 

191 

13:   8 

276 

2:   2-8 

71 

14 

102 

16 

276  bis 

7 

173 

19 

30 

21 

170 

8 

167 

21 

102 

25 

173 

10,  II 

72 

22 

190 

14:33,34 

173 

21 

72 

23- 

•25 

30 

40 

120 

24,  26. 

24, 

25 

21 

44 

120,  180 

30 

257 

27- 

32 

30 

45 

120 

36 

258 

31 

102 

15:34-41 

190 

3:    2,  6 

257 

41 

102 

16:3 

199 

10-16 

258 

324 

INDICES 

Deuteronomy 

Deuteronomy 

Joshua 

4:13 

178 

23:14 

75 

8:30-32  79,  129 

39 

74, 

127 

17 

67 

33         181 

43 

258 

24:   8 

31 

9:10         257 

44- 

•46 

77 

16 

72 

15         201 

46 

257 

25:   I 

74 

17-21  201 

5 

66,  : 

81 

17- 

19  71 

10:   i-ii  255 

5:22 

97, 

178 

27 

79 

11:   1-15  129 

26 

127 

27:   4- 

13  84 

7         131 

6:20 

127 

5- 

8     79 

21,  22  72 

7:   I 

71, 

127 

28:10 

75 

12:   4         257 

2 

75 

22 

74 

13:12,  31  257 

23 

75 

25 

74 

14:   6         121,  129 

8:   2 

173 

38 

74 

131 

4 

173 

52 

74 

12-15  72 

18 

74 

58 

77 

18:   I         183,  201 

9:   2 

72 

61 

77 

19       122,  124 

9 

97,: 

[72,178 

29- 

31  77 

21:16         129 

10:11 

97 

29:   I 

77 

23:   6         79 

15 

97, 

178 

5 

173 

24:    1-320 

17 

97, 

178 

7 

257 

132 

10:    I- 

■5 

97, 

178 

21 

75 

I         132 

8 

180 

29 

87 

25         132,  133 

14 

74, 

127 

30:   I 

75 

26        91,  132 

15 

74 

2 

75 

32^  33 

11:    2 

75 

31    -9 

77,  85,  iSi 

135 

17 

74 

13 

74 

33         201 

20 

84 

24- 

26  77,  181 

12:    I 

74 

32:44 

276 

Judges 

15 

84 

33-   2 

176 

i:   1—2:5 

21 

84 

7 

121 

123,  132 

13:17 

127 

8 

222 

I         124,  222 

14:4-20 

31 

34:   I 

258 

16         257 

15 

74 

7 

249 

21         255 

15:   I 

31 

8 

170 

22-26  122 

16:13- 

16 

21 

27-34  122 

21, 

22 

67 

Joshua 

34,  35  122 

17:  3 

67 

i:   7, 

8    78 

2:   1-5     I28,fi33 

14 

82 

2:11 

127 

13 

i5> 

16 

71 

3 

181 

3:   7-1 I   269 

18, 

19 

82 

3:10 

127  bis 

16         140 

18:   I 

85 

II 

127 

21         140 

2 

31 

4:   I- 

-5:31 

30        301 

10 

70 

131 

4:    1-3     ^33 

20:    I- 

■9 

71 

6 

127 

II         257 

I 

75 

16 

182 

5         60 

10-15 

71 

21 

127 

5:   4,  5 

i7> 

18 

71 

5:    2 

127 

5:   4,  5    176 

19, 

20 

71 

4- 

•7     127 

6:19-26  108 

21:   5 

85 

6 

127 

8:27         222 

10 

75 

13, 

14  264 

11:34-39  108 

22:13 

31 

6:   4- 

■13   181 

12:   6         59 

23:   7 

71 

7 

123 

13:19         28,  108 

9- 

■14 

71 

7:   6 

181 

23         28 

9> 

10 

31 

15 

127 

17:   5         222 

INDICES 


325 


Judges 

18:14-20  222 

30         207 

20:27  181 

28  202 

21  183 
21:   8-14  258 

I  Samuel 

i:   3  202 

2:18  222 

22  183 
27-36  205 
34  202 

4:   3,  4  181 

4  202 

5  181 

II  181,  202 

17  202 

5:   I  181 

8  181 

10  181 

6:   3  28 

4  28 

8  28 

13  181 

14  108 

17  28 
18,  19  181 
21  181 

7:   I,  2  181 

10:   5  184 

25  82 

26  184 
11:   4  184 

14:   3  184,  202 

18  183 

34  108 

35  184 
15:  7  158 
20:   6  109 

30  60 

21:   9  222 

22:18  222 

23:   6-9  222 

27:8  158 

28:   3-9  33 

6  222 

II  Samuel 

2:12-24  184 

6:   2-9  181 

10-12  181 

13  109 

14  222 


II  Samuel 

6:15-17  182 

18         109 

7:   5-7     83 

15:24,  25  182 

29         182 

20:   8         184 

21 :  6        184 

24:16        185 

25        109,  185 

I  Kings 

i:   9         109 
2:   26,  3  80 

27         202,  206, 
210 
3:   4         109 

15         182,  186 
6:    I         234 
19         182 

8  21,  74,  75 
8:   1-9     182 

9  178 
23-48  74,  75 

63  109 

64  28,  33 
11:41         75 
12:31         no 
14:21-24  215 
15:11-15  215 

II  Kings 

3:20         28 
10:   5         70 

31  39 

11:4  216 

16  216 

14:   6  72 

18  74 

16:   6  167 

13  28 

15  28 

18:   6  36 

21:   8  81 

22:   8  65,  66 

16,  17  66 

23:   4  67 

5  69 

6  67 

7  67,  70 

8  32,  67 

9  70 

10  33,  70 

11  70 

13         32,  70 


II  Kings 

23:15         32,71 
16-20  71 

24  32,  67,  71 

25  66,  76 

I  Chronicles 

6:  3-15  202 

10         203 

15         203 

19         276 

31         182 

47         276 

50-53  202 

8:29-35  184 

9:35-41  184 

13:  3-9     181 

13,  14  181 

15:   I         182 

27  222 
16:37-40  41 

39-40  184 

17:   I  181 

2-6  83 

5,  6  181 

21:15  185 

28  185 
22:12  40 

19         182 

23,  24  210 
23:21,  23  276 
24:26,  30  276 
28:   2         182 

18         182 

II  Chronicles 

i:  3-6  186 

4    182 

7-13  186 

5:  2-10  182 

10    178 

6  75 

6:11  182 

41  182 

8:11  182 

9:29  75 

11:13  215 

12:  I  215 

13:  9  215 

14:  4  40 

15:  3    40 
12-15  215 
17:  6-10  215 

9    39 
19:  4,  8  215 


326 


EsT)ICES 


II  Chronicles 

Psalms 

Daniel 

21 :   6 

216 

19:   4-6 

22 

9:10 

42 

23:   I 

216 

43:   3 

26 

II 

81 

17 

216 

46:   4 

26 

13 

81 

iS 

So 

68:35 

26 

25:   4 

74 

84:    I 

26 

Hosea 

26 

74 

132:   5 

26 

4:  6 

90 

26:2 

167 

S:i2 

2)i 

16-20 

216 

Isaiah 

29:34 

216 

1:13 

27,  22> 

Joel 
3:19 

30:14 
15 

217 
216,  217 

4:   5 
5:246 

28 
37 

1  - 

16 

81 

19:19 

43.  293 

18-20 

217 

29:   I 

27 

Amos 

22 

217 

30:   9 

37 

2:   4 

38 

25 

217 

34:16 

37 

10 

173 

2" 

217 

63:   1-6 

"  2 

4:  5 

28 

31:   3.  4 

35 

5:22 

28  bis 

35:   3 

1S2 

Jeremiah 

25 

28,  173 

26,  27 

36 

2:16 

162 

Ezra 
2:   2 

292 

8:   8 

43:   7-9 
44:   I 

37 

162 

43, 160, 162 

Zephaniah 
i:   4 
3:10 

70 
28 

40 
63 

220 
222 

46:14 
49:   8 

160, 162 
72 

Malachi 

7--   1-5 
6 

202 
Si 

4:   4 

81 

10 

42 

Ezekiel 

65 
8:14 

292 

8:16-18 
29:10 
30:   6 

210 
160 
160 

Mark 
14:70 

60 

Nehemiah 

18 

162 

Luke 

1-  7 

292 

43  ••19 

218 

22:59 

60 

8:   I 

81 

44:   4 

29  bis 

23:   6 

60 

2 

220 

10,  II 

218 

15-19 

220 

13 

21S 

Acts 

9:   3 

42 

15 

218 

2:   7 

60 

14 

Si 

45:i7 

28 

*  •   / 

10:16 

292 

46:   I,  3.. 

6 

12:    1-7 

210 

2S 

12-21 

210 

48:11 

219 

B.     INDEX  OF  NAMES  AND  SUBJECTS 


Aamu,  23S,  24ofF. 

Aaron,  271.  276,  et  passim;  older 
brother  of  Moses,  138,  193;  younger 
brother  of  Moses.  93  f.,  105,  133, 
171  f.,  193;  sons  of,  29,  61. 

Aaronic  priesthood,  30,  60,  86,  174, 
195  £f.,  212,  215. 

Abbaseh,  145. 

Abbreviations  of  names,  207. 

Abiah,  215. 


Abiathar,  202,  206,  208,  210.  212,  222. 
Abib.  month-name,  21,  170 
Abihu,  94,  105,  172,  106. 
Abimelech,     206,     20S  ff.,     212. 
Abiram,  125. 
Abisha,    "Ruler  of  the  Highlands," 

236. 
Abishuah,  202,  20S,  212. 
Abominations,  in  P  and  D,  67 
Abraham,  47,  50,  55,  133. 
Abrek,  239. 


INDICES 


6^1 


Abu  Hamad,  145. 

Abu  Said,  145. 

Abydos,  237  ff. 

Accacia  wood,  ark  made  of,  180. 

Adad,  Syrian  divinity,  264. 

Adam,  "Generations"  of,  51. 

Addi,  the  judge,  25S  ff. 

Admah,  257. 

Admixtures,  law  on,  190. 

Adulter}-,  law  on,  190. 

A-du-re,  255 

Ae,  Babylonian  divinity,  it,. 

Agade,  302. 

Ahaz,  216. 

Ahijah,  the   Shilonite,  prophecy  of, 

75;  the  priest,  184. 
Ahimaaz,  203,  212. 
Ahimelech,  206,  212,  219,  222;    name 

confused  with  Abimelech,  208  ff. 
Ahitub,  184,  203,  206,  212. 
Ahmose   I,    king    of     Egvpt,    Djn. 

X\'III.  248  f. 
Akkad,  land   in  Middle  Babylonia, 

Ai,  129,  181. 

.\iab,  255  ff. 

.\ilam,  167. 

.\in  Shemes,  149. 

Alexandrinus,  Greek  Codex,  143,  183, 

235- 
Altar,   32,    193;    law  on,   188  f.;    at 

Damascus,  216;   Ebal,  79,  83,  129; 

Horeb,   94,   104,   175;    Jerusalem, 

109,  185. 
.\malek,  99, 123;  Amalekites,  71,  120, 

171. 
.\marna  Letters,    253-268,   270,  274, 

298. 
Amaziah,  72  ff.,  81,  216. 
.\mariah,  203,  212. 
.Amenemhet  II,  king  of  Egj'pt,  Dyn. 

XII,  238. 
Amenemhet  III,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn. 

XII,  245  ff. 
.\menhotep  I,  king  of  Eg}'pt,  Dvn. 

XVIII,  299. 
.\menhotep  II,  king  of  Egypt,  D>ti. 

XA'III,  250. 
Amenhotep  III,  king  of  Eg}-pt,  Djti. 

XVIII,  253,  26Sf.,  305.    ' 
Amenhotep  IV,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn. 

XVIII,  253,    269,    305.     See   also 
Ikhnaton. 

Amenmeses,    king   of     Eg\-pt,    Dyn. 

XIX,  227. 


Amenophis,  227. 

Amon,  Egj'ptian  divinity,  162;  i\mon- 

Re,  231. 
Amorites,  97,  122,  241;    divinity  of, 

24. 
Amos,  38,  63. 

Amram,  196.  ^ 

Amurru,  24.  :$ 

Anab,  257. 
Anakim,  72,  131. 
Anani,  290. 

Anarchy  in  Eg}-pt,  227,  229. 
Anath,  302. 
Anathoth,  302. 
Ancestor-worship,  survivals  of  in  P, 

24;  at  Bethel,  71. 
^\ngel,  94,  1S5;  of  Yahweh,  108,  128. 
Animals,  clean  and  unclean,  laws  on, 

31- 

.Anpu,  224. 

Anthropomorphisms  in  P,  22  f. 

Antoninus,  itinerary  of,  160. 

Anu,  Babylonian  disinity,  23. 

Apocn,-pha,  calendar  system  in,  22. 

Apuriw,  234. 

Aqabah,  Gulf  of,  166,  177. 

Arabah,  in  Moimt  Seir,  176. 

Arabia,  nome  of  Lower  Egypt,  142, 
144  ff.,  147. 

Arabic,  dialects,  59;  language,  59, 
265;  version  of  the  Bible,  152 

-Arad,  301. 

Aram-N^aharaim,  269,  300. 

Aramaic,  language,  60,  270,  2S5'ff. ; 
Galilean  dialect  of,  43;  Papyri, 
285  ff. ;  versions  of  the  Bible  (  =  the 
Targums),  141. 

Aramaisms  in  the  Bible,  60. 

Araunah,  threshing-floor  of,  iSi,  185. 

A-ra-ru,  255. 

Archaisms  in  P,  57. 

Ark,  86;  of  God,  202;  of  the  Coven- 
ant, 41,  77,  81,  85,  108  f.,  121,  124, 
129,  iSo  ff.,  222;  of  Testimony,  180, 
182-187,  201;  of  Noah,  21. 

Arnon,  River,  166 

Aroer,  257. 

Arsham,  Persian"  governor  in  Egypt, 
289,  291. 

Artatama  I,  king  MitS.ni,  268. 

Artatama  II,  king  of  the  Horites, 
269  f.,  300. 

Artaxerxes  II,  king  of  Persia,  291. 

Arj'an  people,  17,  20. 

Arzawa,  city  of  Syria,  253. 


328 


INDICES 


Asa,  40,  63,  215. 

Asenat,  wife  of  Joseph,  240. 

Asher,  tribe  of,  122. 

Asherah,  worship  of,  67,  70. 

Ashtoreth,  goddess,  70. 

Asiatics  in  Egj'pt,  236  f.,   272. 

Askalon,  Philistine  city,  228. 

Assemblies,  27  f. 

Assuan,   city  of    Upper   Egypt,   286, 

289;   papyri  from,  273. 
Assyria,    253;    inscriptions   of,    18  f., 

274;  language  of,  59. 
Assyriologists,  19,  264  f. 
Astarte,  city  in  Bashan,  255  ff. 
Asylum,  laws  on,  189. 
Atad,  threshing-floor  of,  242. 
Atonement,  Day  of,  30,  102. 
Aton-faith,  a  new  religion  introduced 

into  Egypt  by  Amenhotep  IV,  305. 
Atum,  ancient  divinity  of  Heliopolis, 

148;     throne  of,  231. 
Autumnal  equinox,  21. 
Avaris,  Hyksos  city  of  Egypt,  24. 
Azariah,  203,  212,  216. 

B 
Baal,  Canaanite  divinity,  264. 
Baal-Peor,  Moabite  divinity,  125. 
Baal-Zephon,  city  of  the  eastern  Delta, 

154  f-,  157,  159.  162. 
Babylonia.    253;     captivity    in,    218, 

220  f.;   Jews  in,  18,  20;    lunar  year 

of,  20  f.;      month-names     of,     20; 

calendar    of,    21  f.;     year    of,    22; 

language  of,  59;  laws  of,  116;  mana 

of,  1 13;  inscriptions  of,  243,  268,  274. 
Bagoas,   Persian  governor  of  Judah, 

291. 
Bagohi,  289.    See  preceding. 
Balaam,  268. 
Balah,  lake  on  border  of  Egj'pt,  158, 

162. 
Balak,  king  of  Moab,  125,  268  f.,  300. 
Bamoth,  166. 
Barak,  131  f.,  300. 
Bashan,  125,  242. 
Bata,  224. 

Beautiful  names,  48,  238. 
Beer,  166. 

Beeroth-bene-Jaakan,  166. 
Bel,  Babylonian  divinity,  23. 
Belbeis,  145,  149. 

Benihassan,     modern    name    of    the 
capital  of  the  Oryx  nome  of  Egypt, 

236. 


Benjamin,  248;    dialect  of,  59;    tribe 

of,  108,  122,  132,  300. 
Benoni,    248,    257.     See   also  preced- 
ing. 
Beon,  257. 
Bethel,  38,   122,   129,   i8i,   202,   257; 

high  places  of,  32,  70;  sepulchers  of, 

71;   sacrifice  at,  128. 
Bethlehem,  109. 
Beth-Peor,    mountain   in   Moab,    77, 

166. 
Beth-Shemesh,  108,  181. 
"Beyond  Jordan,"  77,  242. 
Bezalel,  186,  212. 
Bi-en-e-ni-ma,  255  ff. 
Bigvai,  293. 
Bilhah,  45. 
"Birth  of  Re,"  305. 
Bi-ti-lim,  255  ff. 
Bitter  Lakes,  on  border  of  Egypt,  149, 

164. 
Blood  of  the  Covenant,  94. 
Bnon,  248.     See  Benjamin. 
Bochim,  near  Bethel,  128. 
Boghaz-koi,  in  Cappadocia,  268,  303. 
Bohairic  Version,  149. 
Boils  and  Blains,  plague  of,  274. 
Book,  meaning  of,  50. 
Book  of  the  Acts  of  Solomon,  75. 
Book  of  the  Covenant,  in  D,    66;    in 

E,  91-98;  contents  of,  92-97;  date 

of,  98  f. 
Book  of  the  Kings  of  Israel  and  Judah, 

36. 
Book    of    the    Kings    of    Judah    and 

Israel,  74. 
"Book  of  the  Law,"  promulgated  by 

Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  11. 
Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  73,  76. 
Book  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh,  39,  64. 
Book  of  Mormon,  68. 
Book  of  Moses,  74. 
Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh,  137. 
Book  of  Yahweh,  37  f. 
Book  of  Toledoth,  525. 
Brahma,  Vedic  divinity,  23. 
Breastplate,  222. 
Breeches,  law  on,  102. 
Bribery,  law  on,  116. 
Brick-making,  250  ff. 
Bukki,  high-priest,  203,  212. 
Eul,  Canaanitic  month-name,  21. 
Burglary,  law  on,  113. 
Burnt-otTerings,    35,     79,     104,     169, 
1S4  ff.,  188.     See  also  Holocausts. 


INDICES 


329 


Caleb,  72,  119  f.,  129,  138,  198,  300. 

Calendar,  Canaanitic,  21,  235;  Baby- 
lonian, 22;  Egyptian,  21;  Hebrew, 
22. 

Calf-worship,  96,  105,  175,  178,  193. 

Cambyses,  king  of  Persia,  43,  272,  289. 

Camp,  law  on  arrangement  of,  71. 

Canaanites,  97, 120, 12^,228,  et  passim; 
calendar  of,  21,  235;  law  on  destruc- 
tion of,  71;  language  of,  43- 

Canonical  law,  102. 

Cappadocia,  169. 

Caravans,  117. 

Casius,  Mount,  149. 

Cataract,  the  First,  2S6. 

Central  Sanctuary,  in  P,  25  &.,  in  D. 
82-84- 

Ceremonial  impurity,  31. 

Ceremonies,  281;  of  P,  41;  of  D,  41. 

Chamor,  24. 

Change  of  names,  47-49- 

Chemarim,  69. 

Chemosh,  70. 

Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah,  74. 

Chronology,  Biblical,  299  ff. ;  in  P, 
20  f.,  170;  in  JED,  170  f.;  Baby- 
lonian, 20,  303;   Egyptian,  304  ff- 

Cimerian  people,  19. 

Circumcision,  25;  covenant  of,  47; 
at  Gilgal,  127  fi- 

Civil  law,  95. 

Civil  year,  22. 

Clans,  277;  =  "Thousand,"  105,  151, 
192,  194,  196  ff. 

Clean  and  unclean  animals,  laws  on. 

Cleanliness  m  camp,  law  on,  190. 

Codes,  281;  of  P,  34  ff-;  of  D,  31, 
76  ff.;  of  E,  90  ff.;  of  Ezekiel,  29; 
Holiness,  21,  30,  31,  56,  58;  Ham- 
murabi, 102,  110-117,  191,  274; 
Blessings  and  Curses  in,  79,  95. 

Commandments,  40,  80,  95. 

Conclusions  in  regard  to  date  of  P, 
44;  unity  of  P,  56;  language  of  P, 
62;  document  of  P,  63  f-;  date  of 
D,  88;  date  of  E,  99  f.;  Unity  of  E, 
117  f.;  relation  of  E  to  D,  134; 
priesthoods,  220  f-;  exodi,  271; 
similaiities,  177;  Documentary  Hy- 
pothesis  277-82. 

Confusion  of,  Sinai  and  Horeb,  138; 
Eli  and  Eleazar,  2052.;  Eleazar 
and  Eliezer,  207  f- ;  Ahimelech  and 


Abimelech,  208  ff- ;  Mouses  and 
Moses,  275;  Sharru-gi  and  Shar- 
gani-sharri,  304;  Hoshea  and 
Joshua,  276;  Shechem  and  Shik- 
mim,  241;   Atad  and  Eder,  242. 

Conquest  of  Palestine,  270;   the  first, 
120  ff.;  the  second,  129  f. 

Consecration  of  the  Temple,  33;  sons 
of  Levi,  96,  105  f. ;  priests,  102. 

Contents  of  P,  45-47 ;  of  Book  of  the 
Covenant,  92-97;    of  E,  101-18- 

Convocations,  solemn,  27. 

Cosmetics  brought  to  Egypt,  236. 

Courts  of  law,  103. 

Covenant  of  circumcision,  47;  in 
Moab,  77,  82,  84,  126;  at  Horeb, 
77, 84, 92  ff. ;  g7,et  passim;  atShiloh, 
91,  100,  et  passim;  the  Four-,, 
49. 

Cow-images,  175. 

Crete,  298. 

Critical  results,  11.  ? 

Crocodile  Lake,  148. 

Cursing  of  parents,  law  on,  191. 

Cushan-Rishathaim,  270. 

Cush-Arshathaim,  269,  300. 

D 

D.   See  Deuteronomic  Document. 
Dagon,  Phihstine  divinity,  181. 
Damascus,  216. 
Dan,  tribe  of,  108,  122;  sanctuary  of, 

207. 
Daphnai,  162. 
Darkness,  plague  of,  274. 
Darius  II,  king  of  Persia,  289  ff. 
Date,   of  documents,    12,    278  f.;    D 

document,  11,  65-88;  E  document, 

10,  98-100;    J  document,  10,    137; 

P  document,  11,  17-44;  exodi,  223, 

270. 
Dathan,  125. 
David,  34,  40  f.,  44,  63,  80  f.,   109, 

122,  137,  181,  184  ff.,  204  ff.,  210  ff. 
Day  of  Atonement,  30,  102. 
Dead  Sea,  167,  258. 
Deborah,  131  f.,  265  ff.,  299  f. ;   Song 

of,  60. 
Decalogue,  174,  178. 
Delayah,  son  of  Sanballat,  291 - 
Deluge  story,  21. 
Deposit,  law  on,  114. 
Determinants,  historical,  30. 
Deuteronomic  document  (D),  9,  31; 

date  of,  II,  65-88;  finding  of,  65  ff.; 


330 


INDICES 


relation    to    E,    119-38;     language 

of,  135  f-.  303- 

Development  Hypothesis,  65.  See 
also  Evolutionary  Hypothesis. 

Devotees,  house  of,  67. 

Dialects,  139  f.;  of  Judah,  138;  Levi, 
52,  60-62;  Gilead,  59;  Ephraim, 
59;  Jerusalem,  59;  Shechem,  136; 
Benjamin,  59;  Hebrew,  59;  Canaan- 
itic,  43;  Galilean  Aramaic,  43,  60; 
Moabitic,  58. 

Dinah,  45. 

Discovery  of  Deuteronomy,  65-69, 
85-88. 

Disfigurement  in  mourning,  law  on, 
190. 

Documents,  criteria  of,  9,  12;  num- 
ber of ,  8,  278  f. 

Documentary  Hypothesis,  9  f.,  12  f., 
54,  63;  conclusions  in  regard  to, 
277-82. 

Door  of  the  East,  148. 

Doublets,  280;   in  P,  46. 

Dream,  135;  of  Solomon,  185  f. 

Dushratta,  king  of  Mitani,  268  . 

Dwelling-place,  26,  182  ff. ;  of  "His 
Name,"  83. 

Dynasties  A,  B,  C,  and  D  of  Baby- 
lonia, 303. 


E.     See  Elohistic  Document. 

E^  135- 

Eastern  Nome,  148  f. 
Ebal,  79,  129,  181;    altar  at,  79;    in- 
scribed stones  at,  136. 
Eben-ezer,  181. 
Eber-hannahar,  133. 
Ecclesiastical  year,  22. 
Eder,  east  of  Jordan,  242;    in  Judah, 

257- 
Edom,  167,  176,  227;    kings  of,   34; 

hated  by  Israel,   71  f.;    Edomites, 

71  f.,  272. 
Edrei,  166,  242. 
Eglon,  king  of  Moab,  301. 
^gUra,  288. 
Egypt,     43,     46;       monuments,     19; 

priests,  43;  calendar,  21;   year,   21; 

month  names,  21;   beautiful  names 

in,  48;     inscriptions    of,    146,    151, 

161,  163,  115,  225  f.,  228,  230,  232, 

236,  244,  274,  302. 
Ehud,  judge,  257  fit'.,  265  f.,  300  ff. 
Ekron,  Philistine  city,  181. 


Eleazar,  194,  196,   200,   202  ff.;   iden- 
tical with  Eli,  205  ff. ;  confused  with 

Eliezer,  207  f. 
El-Elyon,  25. 
El-Shaddai,  24,  47,  49. 
Elam,  18. 
Elath,  167. 
Elders,  of  Israel,   77,   94,    171!.;    of 

Judah,  66;   of  Jerusalem,  66. 
Eleanitic  Gulf,  167. 
Elephantine,  2875.;    temple  of  Vah- 

weh  at,  43,  87  ff. ;  papyri  from,  288  ff. 
Eli,  28,  181,  184,  202  ff.,  219. 
Eliab,  125. 
Eliezer,  207,  212. 
Elim,  166  f.,  171. 
Elisha,  28. 
Elohim,  47-49;   in  a  plural  sense,  23, 

54- 
Elohistic  Document  (E),  9;    date  of, 

89-100;  unity  of,  101-118;  relation 

to  D,  119-134;   language  of,  135. 
El-paran,  167. 
Elul,  month-name,  22. 
Elyon,  25. 
Endor,  witch  of,  2^. 
England,  dialects  of,  59. 
En-lil,  Babylonian  divinity,  303. 
Enoch,  22. 
Ephraim,  59;  dialect  of,  135;  tribe  of, 

122,  132,  201;  Gilgal  of,   129 
Ephod,  183,  202,  221  f. 
Epiphi,  Egyptian  month-name,  21. 
Ecjuinox,  21. 
Ero,  149. 

Esau,  45  f.,  64,  133;  friendship  for,  71. 
Escol,  120,  173. 
Etef-crown,  231. 
Etham,  153,  157  ff.,  166,  169. 
Ethanim,  Cannanitic  month-name,  21. 
Etruscans,  19. 
Eusebius,  248. 
Evolutionary    Hypothesis,    10,    15  f.; 

conclusions  in  regard  to,  277-82. 
Exile,  20,  31,  et  passim. 
Exodus,    starting-point     of,     153-65; 

routes  of,  166-68;   dates  of,  223-70. 
External  evidence,  for  date  of  P,  42- 

44;    date  of  D  65-69. 
Ezekiel,  11,  28  ff.,  34,  57;  code  of,  29; 

language  of,  61;    proposed  reform 

of,  218  f. 
Ezion  Gaber,  166,  176. 
Ezra,   II,    17,   29  f.,  34,  44,  57,   203; 

language  of,  61. 


INDICES 


33^ 


Familiar  spirits,  law  on,  32. 

Fasting,  of  Moses,  97 ;  in  Elephantine, 

290. 
Feast,   30,   35;    of    Trumpets,    21  f., 

30;    of    Tabernacles,    22,    29;     of 

Ingathering,    22;     of    Unleavened 

Bread,  191;   of   New  Year,  22;    of 

New  Moons,  27  f.,  35. 
"Fill  the  hands,"  105  f. 
Eiran,  Wady,  175. 
Flesh  torn  by  beasts,  law  on,  189. 
Firstborn  son,  priestly  rights  of,  104; 

plague  of  death  of,  274. 
Flies,  plague  of,  274  f. 
Flint -knives,  127. 
Fragmentary  Hypothesis,  12. 
Fragments,  in  P,  45  f. ;  in  E,  loi;     in 

E  Code,  loi  ff. 
Framework  of  Hexateuch,  52  ff. 
Frogs,  plague  of,  274. 
Frontier  officials,  224  ff. 
Funeral  expedition,  242. 

G 

Gad,  tribe  of,  124,  126. 

Galilee,  dialect  of,  43,  60,  207;  fugi- 
tives from,  43. 

Gamurrini,  manuscript  of,  145. 

Ga-re,  255  ff. 

"Gates."     5ee  Satyrs. 

Gath,  Philistine  city,  181. 

Gaza,  Philistine  city,  167. 

Geba,  184  f. 

Gebelen,  city  of  Upper  Egypt,  305. 

"  Generations,"  50  f. 

Geography  of  the  Bible,  14;  in  P, 
17-20. 

Gerah,  257. 

Gerizim,  136,  181. 

Germany,  dialects  of,  59. 

Gershom,  son  of  Moses,  196,  207,  302. 

Gesem,  145. 

Gezer,  228. 

Gharandel,  Wady,  167,  175. 

Gibeah,  183  ff.,  212;  of  Elohim,  184; 
of  Saul,  184. 

Gibeon,  41,  109,  129,  182  ff.,  212; 
Gibeonites,  183,  201. 

Gideon,  108,  222. 

Gilead,  108;   dialect  of,  59. 

Gilgal,  of  Benjamin,  121,  127;  of 
Ephraini,  129,  300. 

Gimirrai,  19. 

Gleanings,  law  on,  190. 


Gomer,  19,  20. 

Good  deeds,  36  f. 

Goring,  law  on,  112. 

Goshen,  land  of,  142  ff. ;   city  of,  145, 

147. 
Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant,  92. 
Greece,  dialects  of,   59;    peoples  of, 

19,  272. 
Gudgodah,  166. 
Gulf  of  Aqabah   166,  177. 

H 

^a-{aS)-pi-ni,  225. 

^a-bi-re,  254. 

Hadad,  264. 

Hadar,  king  of  Edom,  34. 

Hades,  Greek  divinity,  23. 

Hail,  plague  of,  274. 

Hamath,  pass  of,  190. 

Hammurabi,  18;    Code  of,  102,  iio- 

17;    191,  274. 
Hangings  for  Asherah,  70. 
Harakhte,  sun-god  of  Heliopolis,  231. 
Haremhab,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XIX, 

272,  306;  laws  of,  95. 
j^arre,  269. 
Hatshepsut,    queen    of    Egypt,    Dyn. 

XVIII,  175,  249,  270. 
Qattusil,  Hittite  king,  303. 
Hazeroth,  119,  166,  172. 
Hazor,  129,  131,  265. 
Heave-offering,  102. 
Hebrew,  language,  59-61,  139  f.;   see 

also  Massoretic  text;    calendar,  22; 

year,  21;  New-year's  Day,  21;  text, 

49,  132,  141,  240;  Hebrews,  21,  181. 
Hebron,  138,  227,  300. 
He-goats,  sacrifices  to,  102. 
Heliopolis,  148  f.,  245,  250;   northern, 

149. 
Henotheistic  worship,  25. 
Heracleopolis,  306. 
Herding,  law  on,  114. 
Herodotus,  149. 
Heroo-polis,    142,    145,    148  ff.,    164; 

Heroopolitan  Gulf,  149. 
Heshbon,  166,  255  ff. 
Hexateuch,  36,  89,  101,  138,  220;  do- 
cuments of,    9,    44,    63,    279,    281; 

framework  of,  52  ff. 
Hezekiah,   68,   85,   217;    reforms  of, 

35  f.,  63;   Passover  of,  81. 
High-places,  of  satyrs,  32;   of  Judah, 

32,    67,    70;     Jerusalem,    32,    70; 

Bethel,  32,  70;   laws  on,  32. 


332 


INDICES 


High-priest,  30,  65,  86,  194  ff. 
High-priestly  Usts,  202  f.,  212,  216. 
Hilkiah,  65  ff.,  85,  203. 
j^i-ni-a-na-bi,  255. 
Hiroth,  159. 

History  of  Nathan  the  Prophet,  75. 
Historical  determinants,  30. 
Historical  Hypothesis,  15,  277  ff. 
Hittites,  97,  228,  253  f.;     inscriptions 

of,    268,    270,    274;     king  of,    303; 

ambassadors  of,  145,  223. 
Hivites,  97. 
Hobab,  255. 

Holiness  Code,  21,  30,  31,  56,  58. 
Holy  Scriptures,  inspiration  of,  13. 
Holocaust,   27,  41,  43,  175,  290.     See 

also  Burnt-offering. 
Holy    of     Holies,     292  f.     See    also 

Oracle-place. 
Homer's  Odyssey,  19. 
Hophni,  202. 

Hor,  Mount,  166,  170,  200,  298. 
Horeb,  102,  152,  166,  171  f.,  178  ff., 

299;    legislation  at,  90,   119,   188- 

192,  271,  282;    location  of,  174  ff.; 

covenant  at,  77,  84,  92  ff.,  97,  106, 

137;   confused  with  Sinai,  13S. 
Horites,  228,  269  f.,  300. 
Hormah,  120. 
Horses  of  the  sun,  70. 
Hosea,  70. 

Host  of  Heaven,  worship  of,  67. 
House  of  Joseph,  122,  128,  257. 
House  of  Re,  150. 
House  of  Ramses  11,  145. 
House  of  Sutekh,  145. 
Hulda,  66,  85. 
Hur,  186. 
Hyksos,    235,     247,    270,    272,    302; 

expulsion  of,  249. 

I 
Iddo  the  Seer,  visions  of,  75. 
Idolatry,  69,  91;    laws  on,  191. 
Ijjar,  month-name,  20. 
Ijje-Abarim,  166. 
Ikhnaton,  305.     See  also  Amenhotep 

IV. 
Ildni  Rabilti,  23. 
Impurity,  ceremonial,  31. 
Incense,  27  f.,  43,  289. 
Incest,  laws  on,  31,  190. 
Ingathering,  Feast  of,  22. 
Inscriptions.      See    Amarna     Letters 

Assyria,   Babylonia,  Eg}'pt,  Hittites 


Mesa,   Nabatheans,   Phoenicia,   Si- 

loah. 
Inspiration,  13. 

Institutions,  religious,  in  P,  25  ff. 
Intermarriage,  117. 
Internal  evidence,  for  date  of  P,  17- 

42;  of  D,  69-88;  of  E,  99. 
Ionia,  18. 
Isaac,  133. 
Isaiah,  37,  63. 
Ishbaal,  59. 
Ishbosheth,  59. 
Ishmaelites,  237. 

Ishmailieh,  158,  160;   canal,  149. 
Is-nt,  238,  240. 

Israel,  48,  228,  241;  funeral  of,  241  f. 
Israel  Stela,  228. 
Issachar,  tribe  of,  132. 
Italy,    Etruscan   migration   into,    19; 

dialects  of,  59. 
Itinerary,  of  Antoninus,  160;  of  JED 

166  f.;   of  P,  166. 
Ithamar,  196,  212,  214,  220. 
I-ud-du-a,  255  ff. 
Izhar,  196. 

J 

J.     See  Jahvistic  Document. 

Jaazer,  166. 

Jabbok,  river,  242. 

Jabesh,  258. 

Jabin,  Canaanitic  king,  129,  131,  265, 
300  f. 

Ja-bi-shi,  255. 

Jacob,  45,  48  f.,  64,  133;  scarabs  of 
243  ff. ;    sons  of,  54. 

Jacob-el,  244,  301. 

Jahaz,  166. 

Jahvistic  Document,  9,  23,  50;  anthro- 
pomorphisms in,  23;  date  of,  137; 
language  of,  53,  138;   unity  of,  137. 

Japheth,  sons  of,  18. 

Jaqep,  240. 

Ja-shu-ia,  255. 

Javan, 18. 

Jeb  (  =  Elephantine),  284. 

Jeba,  184. 

Jebusites,  97,  185. 

Jedoniah,  42,  284  tT. 

Jehohanan,  290. 

Jehoiada,  80  f.,  216. 

Jehonan,  292. 

Jehoshaphat,  39  f.,  63,  85,  203,  215. 

Jehoram,  216. 

Jehozadak,  203. 


INDICES 


333 


Jehu,  39. 

Jephtha,  108. 

Jephunneh,  121,  130. 

Jeremiah,  37,  303. 

Jericho,  129,  133,  257,  264  f.,  302. 

Jeroboam  I,  no,  215. 

Jerusalem,  32,  41  f.,  109,  129,  181  f. 
203,  213,  220,  227,  273;  high- 
places  of,  32;  governor  of,  43; 
dialect  of,  60. 

Jeshua,  220. 

Jethro,  102  f.,  171. 

Jews,  in  Babylonia,  18,  20;  in  Ele- 
phantine, 284  ff. 

Jezreel,  131. 

Jib,  184. 

Joash,  81,  216. 

Johanan,  203. 

John  the  Baptist,  204. 

Joiakim,  220. 

Jonah,  book  of,  written  in  the  Galilean 
dialect,  60. 

Jonathan,  208,  212;  son  of  Gershom, 
207. 

Jordan,  77,  181,  241  f.,  258. 

Joseph,  46,  50,  55,  224,  235  ff.;  house 
of,  122  f.,  257. 

Joseph-el,  301. 

Josephus,  227,  247,  291. 

Joshua,  72,  78,  96,  257,  271,  276,  ei 
passim. 

Josiah,  36,  65,  81,  85,  217;  reforms 
of,  II,  63,  67. 

Jothbatha,  166. 

Jubilee,  year  of,  31. 

Judah,  high-places  of,  32;  tribe  of, 
108,  121;  language  of,  138;  gover- 
nor of,  288,  291. 

Judge  Addi,  258  flf. 

Judgments,  77,  80  f.,  94  f.,  102,  134. 

Justinian,  174. 

K 

Kadashman-Turgu,  king  of  Baby- 
lonia, Dyn.  C,  303. 

Kadesh,  120  ff.,  133,  173,  176,  180. 

Kadesh-barnea,  166,  172;  rebellion  at 
119,  121,  123,  130. 

Kaldi,  land  of,  304. 

Kashdi,  land  of,  304. 

Kassites,  303. 

Kastiliashu,  303. 

Keb,  Egyptian  divinity,  231. 

Kedemoth,  166. 

Kenizzites,  21,  30. 


Kesem,  145. 

Khe-kau-Re,  239. 

Khepri-Set,  231. 

Khetem,  158. 

Khnub,  Egyptian  divinity,  286,  388. 

Khnumhotep  II,  236. 

Kibroth  Hattavah,  166,  172. 

King,  law  on  manner  of  choosing,  71, 

82. 
Kingdom  of  priests,  104. 
Kiriath-Jearim,  181,  184. 
Kiriath-Sepher,  300. 
Kish,  304. 
Kohath,  196. 
Korah,  rebellion  of,  198  f. 
Kos,  145. 
Kudur-EnHl,  king  of  Babylonia,  Dyn. 

C,  Z02,,  306. 
Kudurru  Inscriptions,  304. 
Kusa,  145. 
Ku-us-sar,  270,  300. 


Laban,  45. 

Lagoons  of  the  Delta,  159. 

Lamp,  30,  102. 

Language,  Hebrew,  58,  281;  of  Tole- 
doth  Book,  53,  61;  of  P,  57-62;  of 
E,  13s;  of  D,  135  f.;   of  J,  138  f. 

Laver,  102. 

Law,  95,  97,  282. 

"Law  of  Elohim,"  90  f.,  98,  134 

"Law  of  Moses,"  66,  76-82,  90,  98, 

134. 
"Law  of  Yahweh,"  34-42,  64,  78,  86, 

90,  98,  1S4. 
Laws  of  Hammurabi.     See  Code  of 

Hammurabi. 
Laws  of  Haremhab,  95. 
Leah,  45  f. 
Lepers,  227. 
Leprosy,  laws  on,  31,  190;  of  Miriam, 

172. 
Levi,  tribe  of,  195;  dialect  of,  52,  60- 

62,138;  institutions  of,  61;  sons  of, 

77>  96. 
Levites,    29,    218  ff.;    laws    on,     31; 

revenues  of,  190. 
Levitical  priesthood,  85. 
Lex  talionis,  112,  191. 
Libya,  149. 
Lice,  plague  of,  274  f. 
Locusts,  plague  of,  274. 
Lord  of  the  Northland,  162. 
Lower  Egypt,  145. 


334 


INDICES 


Lucianic  text,  Greek,  132. 
Lunar  year,  in  Babylonia,  20. 
Luxor,  283. 
Lying  with  beasts,  law  on,  191. 

:m 

Ma-ag-da-lim,  255. 

Maccabean  Period,  11. 

Machir,  clan  of  Manasseh,  132,  301. 

Machpelah,  cave  of,  24. 

Madian,  177. 

Makrizi,  145. 

Malachi,  57,  81;   language  of,  61. 

Mana,  113. 

Manasseh,  tribe  of,  68,  81,  86,   108, 

122;   eastern,  126;  western,  301. 
Manetho,  227,  233,  305. 
Manoah,  108. 

Manslaughter,  laws  on,  igi. 
Manstealing,  laws  on,  iii,  191. 
Marah,  102  it.,  166  f.,  171,  175. 
Marcheswan,  month-name,  291. 
Massoretic  text,  70,  106,  141,  209,  257. 
Mattanah,  166. 
Mazzebas,  law  on,  190. 
Meal-offering,  27  f.,  t,2„  43. 
Media,  18. 
Me-ish-tit,  255. 
Melchizedek,  25. 
Mentiu-Sati,  238. 
Mentuhotep,  272,  304. 
Menzaleh,  Lake,  159,  162,  164. 
Mephi-bosheth,  59. 
Meon,  257. 
Meraioth,  203. 
Merari,  196. 

Meriamon.     See  Ramses  IL 
Meri-baal,  60. 

Meribah,  east  of  Kadesh-barnea,  166. 
Merneptah,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XIX, 

148,  224,  227,  233;    Israel  Stela  of 

228. 
Merneptah-Hotephirma,    fortress    of, 

224,  227. 
Merom,  131. 
Mesa  inscription,  58. 
Meshah(  ?),  257. 
Mesopotamia,  268  f. 
Mesore,  month-name,  305. 
Micah,  207,  222. 
Midian,    177,    270;     Midianites,    201, 

26S. 
Migdal,  257. 
Migdol,  154,  157,  160. 
Migrations  into  Egypt,  272. 


Milcom,  70. 

Military  service,  law  on,  71. 

Miriam,  125,  172,  193. 

Misplacement  of  texts,  42,  50. 

Miscarriage,  law  on,  iii. 

Missions  conducted  by  Levites,  39  f., 

85- 

Mitani,  253,  269  ff.,  300. 

Moab,  166,  268  f.;  dialect  of,  58; 
covenant  in,  77,  82,  84,  181;  legisla- 
tion in,  89!,  119,  282;  plains  of, 
166,  170,  201. 

Molech,  2,i\  law  on  worship  of,  T/i'y 
70,  190. 

^Monotheism,  24. 

Month-names,  in  Babylonia,  20,  32; 
in  Canaan,  21;  in  Egypt,  21;  in 
JED,  21;  in  P,  20;  Hebrew,  21,  22. 

Morning  and  evening  burnt-offerings, 

35  f--  41- 
Moserah,  166. 
Moseroth,  172. 
Moses,  36,  47,  49,  50  f.,  55,  92  f.,  271, 

2"]^,  et  passim;  birth  of,  249;  priest, 

193  ff. ;   Law  of,  66,  76-82. 
Mourning,  law  on,  190. 
Mouses,  275  f. 
Murrain,  plague  of,  274. 
Musa,  Gebel-,  174;  Ain-,  175. 
Mushi,  clan  of,  277. 
Mustering,   125,   169;    at  Sinai,   197; 

of  Levites,  199  ff. 
Mut-Baal,  258;   letter  of,  255  ff. 

N 

Nabathean  inscriptions,  175. 

Nadab,  94,  105,  172,  196. 

Nahaliel,  166. 

Nahrina,  269. 

Nakht-Set,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XX, 
229,  231. 

Name  of  Yahweh,  dwelling-place  of, 
83,  107. 

Names,  change  of,  47-49;  beautiful, 
48,  240;    throne,  48;    birth,  48. 

Naphayan,  287. 

Naphtali,  tribe  of,  122,  132;  con- 
quest of,  43. 

Nar^m-Sin,  king  of  Agade,  302. 

Nathan,  history  of,  75. 

Nazarites,  234;   law  on,  190. 

Neb-hepet-Re-Mentuhotep,  king  of 
Egypt,  Dyn.  XI,  304. 

Neb-l}ru-Re-Mentuhotep,  king  of 
Egypt,  Dyn.  XI,  304  f. 


INDICES 


335 


Nebo,  Mount,  i66. 

Nebuchadrezzar  (II),  king  of  Baby- 
lonia, 203. 

Negeb,  301. 

Nehemiah,  11,  18,  et  passim. 

New-moon  festivals,  27  f. ;  burnt- 
offerings  for,  35. 

New-year's  Day,  feast  of,  22. 

Nine  Bows,  290. 

Nisan,  month-name,  20,  22. 

Noah,  ark  of  21;  walking  with 
Elohim,  22;   "generations"  of,  51. 

Nob,  222. 

Northern  Heliopolis,  149,  233. 

Northern  Kingdom,  38;  home  of  the 
E  Code,  39,  90, 99,  no,  118, 135, 173. 

Northland,  lord  of,  162. 

Nubia,  239. 

"Numbering,"  125. 

Nuh-kau-Re,  238. 

Nun,  father  of  Joshua,  201. 

O 

Oak,  sacred,  at  Shiloh,  91;    at  Oph- 

rah,  108. 
Oasis,  176. 

Obed-Edom,  181,  222. 
Oblations,  27. 
Oboth,  166. 

Odin,  Scandinavian  divinity,  23. 
Odysseus,  19. 
Odyssey,  19. 
Offerings,  law  on,  189. 
Og  king  of  Bashan,  125  f. 
Oil,  holy,  30 
On,  (  =  Heliopolis),  150. 
Onias,  temple  of,  150. 
Ophrah,  108. 

Oppression  in  Egypt,  233  f.,  250,  270. 
Oracle-Place,  86,  293. 
Ordinance,  loi,  133. 
Oman,  182,  185. 
Oryx  nome,  236. 
Osarsiph,  227,  229,  233. 
Osiris,  231,  237. 
Ostan,  290. 
Othniel,  269,  300. 


P.     See  Priestly  Document. 
Paddan-Aram,  54. 

Palestine,  20,  116,  129,  227,  et  passim. 

Papyri,    Aramaic,    284  ff. ;     Anastasi 

VI,  224-226;  Harris,  154  f.,  149  ff., 


161  ff.,   165,   229-233;    Harris  500, 

250;   Orbiney,  224;   Turin,  304. 
Paradise  storj',  30. 
Paran,  wilderness  of,  166,  170;  mount 

of,  176  f. 
Pashe,  Babylonian  Dynasty  of,  303. 
Passover,  169;    of  Hezekiah,  81,  217; 

statute  on,  102;   laws  on,  189. 
Pasturage,  law  on,  113. 
Patriarchs,  47. 
Patricide,  law  on,  in. 
Peace-offerings,  27  f.,  79,  105,  109. 
Pelusium,  160. 
Pentateuch,  11,  et  passim. 
Pentecost,  102,  162. 
Perizzites,  97. 
Pe(r)-Atum,  148. 
Pe(r)-Soped,  145. 
Pe(r)-Tum,  148. 
Perjury,  law  on,  115,  191. 
Persia,  17;   Persian  Period,  272,  283, 

292;   Persians,  17  f. 
Peshitta,  Syriac  Version,  132. 
Pethor,  269. 
Petra,  167,  176. 
Phacusa,  145. 
Pharaoh,   142  ff.,   205,  et  passim;    of 

the  Oppression,  224. 
Philistines,  18,  153,  166,  273;  gods  of, 

181. 
Phinehas,  201,  206,  212. 
Phoenician  inscriptions,  21;  language, 

60;  mana,  113. 
Pi-Hahiroth,  154  f.,  157  ff.,  162,  169. 
Pilgrimages,  175;  laws  on  the  annual, 

191. 
Pillar,  of  Yahweh,  43;  sacred,  104;  of 

cloud  and  fire,  154  f. 
Pisgah,  121,  166. 
Pithom,   147  ff.,    227,   233;    pools  of, 

149. 
Plagues,  274  f. 
Pledges,  law  on,  191. 
Pliny,  149,  167. 
Pools  of  Pithom,  149. 
Portion,  priest's,  32,  70;  king's,  35. 
Poseidon,  Greek  divinity,  23. 
Post-exilic  period,  2c,  et  passim. 
Polytheism,  survivals  of,  in  P,  22. 
Prayer,  of  Solomon,  74  ff.;   of  Moses, 

121. 
Priesthood,  102,  193-222;  Aaronic,  30, 

86;   Levitical,  85,  1055.;     general, 

103  ff. 
Priestly  Document,   9,   16,   55  f.,  63; 


336 


INDICES 


date  of,  17-44,  63;  anthropomorph- 
isms in,  22  f.;  code  of,  16,  216; 
unity  of,  45-47 ;  contents  of,  45-47 ; 
language  of,  57-62,  64;  fragments 
of,  45,  63;  doublets  of,  46,  63. 

Priests,  70;  et  passim;  kingdom  of, 
92;  portion  of  unleavened  bread 
for,  32;   definition  of  title,  193  f. 

Priests  and  Levites,  29,  36,  195  ff., 
214  S.,  et  passim. 

Priests,  the  Levites,  29,  80,  64  f., 
195  ff.,  214  ff.,  220,  et  passim. 

Private  sacrifices,  27. 

Psalms,  pre-exilic,  26. 

Ptah,  Egyptian  divinity,  231. 

Ptolemy,  149  ff. 

Ptolemy  the  geographer,  149. 

Purpose  of  the  Hexateuch,  14. 

Q 

Quarrel,  law  on,  in. 

R 

Raamses,  land  of,  142,  144;    city  of, 

145.  147  ff-.  Jt53.  157.  166,  169,  176, 

223,  233. 
Rachel,  45,  248. 
Rahab,  303. 
Ramses  II,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XIX, 

145,  148,  223  f.,  303,  306. 
Ramses  III,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XX, 

145,  149,  162,  227,  229  ff.,  233  f. 
Ramses  IV,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XX, 

233  f- 
Ramses  IX,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XX, 

233- 
Re,  Egyptian  sun-god  of  Heliopolis, 

148,  228,  245;   Re-Atum,  231. 
Rebellion,    at    Horeb,    96,    105;     at 

Kadesh,     119  f.,    of    Dathan    and 

Abiram,  125;    of  Korah,  198. 
Reforms,   of  Josiah,    11,   32,    67;    of 

Saul,  33  ff.;   of  Hezekiah,  35. 
Red  Sea,   133,   152  f.,   157,  162,   164, 

166,  170. 
Rehoboam,  no,  215,  235. 
Rekhmire,  250  ff. 
Release,  year  of,  31. 
Religious  institutions,  281;  of  P,  25  ff. 
Repairs  of  the  Temple,  65,  86  f. 
Rephidim,  99,  102,  166  f.,  171,  175. 
Reports,  of  a  frontier  official,  2245.; 

of  the  secretary  of  Khnumotep  II, 

236. 
Retenu,  238,  240  ff. 


Reuben,  tribe  of,  124,  126,  195. 
Revenues  of  Levites,  law  on,  190. 
Reunion  of  Joshua  and  Caleb,  130. 
Ritual,  Temple,  43,  175. 
Rome,  dialects  of,  59. 


Saadiah  Gaon,  Arabic  version  of,  145, 

149. 
Sabbath,  burnt-offerings  for,  35;   laws 

on,  189. 
Sabbatical  year,  30  f.;    laws  on,  191, 
Sacrifices,     175;     to    he-goats,     120. 

laws  on,  188  f;   private,  27;   public, 

27,  94;  at  Gilgal,  127  f. ;  at  Horeb, 

94;  non-Levitical,  107-110,  134. 
Sadir,  145. 
Saft  el-Henneh,  145. 
Salem,  25. 
Salitis,  247  f. 
Samaria,  90  f.,  292. 
Samaritan   Pentateuch,    n;    text   of, 

49;   dialect,  207. 
Samson,  108,  204,  234. 
Samuel,  44,  204. 
Sanballat,  291. 
Sanctuary,  at  Shiloh,  91;  at  Dan,  207; 

central,  in  P,  25  f. ;   in  D,  82-84. 
Sardinians,  227,  231. 
Sargon,  king  of  Akkad,  303. 
Sargon,  king  of  Assyria,  19. 
Satyrs,  70;   high-places  of,  32. 
Saul,  32  f.,  44,  60,  108,  184,  204,  212; 

reforms  of,  34  f.,  42,  63. 
Scarabs,  243  ff.,  270. 
Scenae  Veteranorum,  150. 
"Schools"  of  compilers,  55. 
Sea    (  =  the    Mediterranean),    154  ff., 

158,  164. 
Sebek-khu,  237-48,  270. 
Sed.     See  Set. 
Seduction,  law  on,  191. 
Seer,  Iddo  the,  75. 
Seething  of  kid,  law  on,  191. 
Seir,  Mount,  71,  133,  176  f.,  272. 
Sekmem,  240  f. 
Semites,  273,  et  passim. 
Separation,  water  of,  102. 
Sepher,  significance  of,  38,  50. 
Septeuagint,   n,  49  f.,  53,104  f.,  132, 

141  ff.,  152,  202,  206,  209,  222,  234 

240,  275. 
Sepulchers,  worship  at,  71. 
Seraiah,  203. 
Serapeum,  160. 


INDICES 


337 


Serbal,  Mount,  174  f. 

Serbut  et-Khadem,  175. 

Serf-laborers  in  Egypt,  233. 

Servitudes  in  Egypt,  148-52. 

Sesostris  II,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XII, 
236,  239. 

Sesostris  III,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XII, 
238  £f.,  247. 

Set,  Egyptian  divinity,  24. 

Seti  I,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XIX,  303. 

Seti  II,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn.  XIX,  224. 

Settlements  of  Hebrews  in  Egypt,  141- 
47,  270. 

Shaddai,  24. 

Shallum,  203. 

Shalmaneser  II,  king  of  Assyria,  18. 

Shamash,  Babylonian  sun-god,  274. 

Shamgar,  302. 

Shaphan,  65  £f.,  85. 

Shar-gani-sharri,  king  of  Agade,  304. 

Sharru-gi,  king  of  Kish,  304. 

Shasu,  227. 

Shechem,  121,  132,  240  ff.;  dialect  of, 
136. 

Shekel,  113. 

Shelemayah,  291. 

Shem,  18;  "generations"  of,  51,  54,  63. 

Shepherd  kings,  247  f. 

Sheshonk  I,  king  of  Egypt,  156. 

Shewbreads,  30,  102. 

Shibboleth,  59. 

Shiloh,  129,  135,  181  f.,  205  ff.; 
temple  of,  132;  covenant  at,  91, 100, 
132,  301;  sanctuary  of  Yahweh  at, 
91;  sacred  oak  at,  91;  sacred  stone 
at,  91,  legislation  at,  133. 

Shilonite,  Ahijah  the,  75. 

Shittim,  125,  166. 

Shiva,  Vedic  divinity,  23. 

Shur,  Wilderness  of,  157  ff.,  164,  166, 
169,  177;   way  of,  274. 

Sibboleth,  59. 

Siege  of  foreign  cities,  law  on,  71. 

Sihon,  125  f. 

Sikima,  241. 

Siloah  inscription,  58. 

Simeon,  tribe  of,  123,  195. 

Similarities  in  the  Exodi  stories,  272- 

77- 

Sin,  Wilderness  of,  166,  169,  176. 

Sinai,  166,  1785.,  212,  et  passim; 
location  of,  1763.;  legislation  at 
188-92,  271,  282;  Wilderness  of, 
26,  166,  169;  mustering  at,  197  ff. ; 
confused  with  Horeb,  98,  138. 


Sinaitic  peninsula,  174,  177,  268. 

Sin-offering,  27,  30. 

Singers,  220. 

Sisera,  131,  302. 

Sivan,  month-name,  20,  23. 

Slave,  laws  on,  189;  Joseph  a,  237. 

Sodom,  45. 

Solar  year,  in  P,  20. 

Solomon,  21,  28,  33,  40,  63,  70,  80  f., 

86,   109,   178,   184  ff.,   204  ff.,   214; 

founding  of  temple  of,    234,   300; 

prayer  of,  74  ff.,  80;    Book  of  the 

Acts  of,  75. 
Son  of  Re,  243  f. 
Song  of  Deborah,  60. 
Song  of  Songs,  60. 
Sorcery,  law  on,  33,  115,  189. 
Sothic  dates,  197. 
Spies,  119,  170. 
Spoil,  purification  of,  102. 
Statutes,  38,  56,  77,  80  f.,  loi  f.,  106, 

133,  222. 
Stela  of  Sebek-khu,  237  ff.,  245. 
Stones,  unhewn,  used  for  altars,  79; 

sacred,   91,   94;    law  on,    190;    at 

Horeb,   104;    of  Zoheleth,   109;    at 

Ebal,  136. 
Storage,  law  on,  114. 
Strabo,  149. 
Strangers,  law  on,  191. 
Straying  animals,  law  on,  191. 
Succoth,  east  of  Jordan,  242. 
Succoth,  in  Egypt,  148,  153.  iS7.  i59. 

166,  169,  227. 
Suez,  159  f.,  162,  164,  175. 
Sulili,  303. 
Sumu-la-ilu,  king  of  Babylonia,  Dyn. 

A,  303- 
Sun,  horses  of,  70. 
Superscriptions,  50. 
Supreme  justice,  103. 
Susa,  18. 

Sutekh,  Egyptian  divinity,  I45- 
Suttarna,  king  of  Mit^ni,  268, 
Sutu,  254. 

Sweden,  dialects  of,  59. 
Sychem,  241. 
Syria,  269;    Syriac  version,  132,  141, 

152. 


Taberah,  166,  172. 

Tabernacle  of  Yahweh,  41,  170,  179, 

185;    of  testimony,  182,  212. 
Tabernacles,  Feast  of,  22,  102. 


33^ 


INDICES 


Table  of  Nations,  17. 

Tables,  of  Covenant,  95,  97,  178  ff.; 

of  Testimony,  178  ff. 
Tahpanhes,  162. 
Tale  of  the  Two  Brothers,  224. 
Tamar,  265. 

Tammuz,  month-name,  289  f. 
Tanis,  24,  162. 
Targum  Onkelos,  152. 
Tassels,  law  on,  190. 
Tatenen,  Egyptian  divinity,  231. 
Tehenu,  228. 
Tel  el-Amarna,  253. 
Tel  el-Defenneh,  162. 
Tel  el-Jehudieh,  150. 
Tel  el-Kebir,  147,  149. 
Tel  el-Maskhutah,  148. 
Tel  el-Rotabieh,  145,  149. 
Temperance  of  priests,  102. 
Temple  of  Yahweh,  Egyptian  proto- 
type of,  175;  at  Elephantine,  43,  283- 

91. 
Tent,  of  meeting,  26,  94,  182  ff.,  186, 

1965.;   of  testimony,  182. 
Teraphim,  worship  of,  71. 
Teresh,  18. 

Testimonies,  77,  80,  174,  179. 
Thank-offering,  27  f. 
Tharu,  158. 
Thaubasium,  160. 
Thebes,  231,  272,  305. 
Theft  of  animals,  law  on,  113. 
Theophanies,  47,  49,  92. 
"Thousand,"  197  f. 
Throne  names,  48. 
Thummim,  222. 
Thutmose    I,    king   of    Egypt,    Dyn. 

XVIII,  235,  249- 
Thutmose  III,  king  of  Egypt,  Dyn. 

XVIII,  249  ff.,  270. 
Tiglath-pileser  IV,  king  of  Assyria,  43. 
Tih,  Mount,  177. 
Timsah,  Lake,  148,  158,  175. 
Tirash,  18,  20. 
Tithes,  102;   law  on,  190. 
Toledoth  Book,  50,  52  ff.,  64,  119,144, 

192,  223;  language  of,  61. 
Tombstones,  worship  at,  71. 
To  rah,  14. 

Trespass-offering,  28,  30. 
Tribal  dialects,  49  ff.,  139  f. 
Trinity,  primitive  ideas  of,  23. 
Troglodytes,  239. 
Troy,  fall  of,  19. 
Trumpets,  silver,  102;  Feast  of,  21,  30. 


Tum,  sun-god  of  Heliopolis,  148. 

Tumilat,  Wady,  149. 

Turin  Papyrus,  304. 

Two  Brothers,  Tale  of,  242. 

Two  Lands  (  =  Eg>'pt),  231,  238. 

U 
U-du-mu,  255. 
Uncleanness,  31. 
United  States,  dialects  of,  49. 
Unity,  of  P,  45-47;    of  E,   101-118; 

of  J,  137  f- 
Unleavened  bread,  priest's  portion  of 

32,  70;   Feast  of,  191 ;   laws  on,  191. 
Upper  and  Lower  Egj'pt,  238. 
Uraeus,  231. 
Uri,  186. 
Urim,  222. 

Userkare-Setepnere-AIeriamon,  231. 
Usermare-AIeriamon  (  =  Ramses  III), 

229. 
User-Re,  244. 
Usury,  laws  on,  191. 
Uzzi,  203,  212. 
Uzziah,  216. 
Uzziel,  196. 

V 

Variegated  coats,  237. 

Vaticanus,  Greek  Codex,  183,  235. 

Vei,  Scandinavian  divinity,  23. 

Versions  of  the  Bible,  Arabic,  152; 
Bohairic  (Coptic),  149;  Peshitta. 
(Syriac),  132;  Targums  (Aramaic) 
141;  Vulgate  (Latin),  152. 

Vicus  Judaeorum,  150. 

Vilir,  Scandinavian  divinity,  23. 

Vishnu,  Vedic  divinity,  23. 

Visions  of  Iddo  the  Seer,  75. 

Vows,  102;   law  on,  190. 

Vulgate,  Latin  version,  152. 

W 

Wady  Firan,  175. 

Wady  Gharandel,  167,  175. 

Wady  Tumilat,  149. 

Waidrang,  283,  289. 

Wall  of  Egypt,  158. 

Wandering,  length  of,  169-73. 

"Wars  of  Yahweh,"  137. 

Water  of  Re,  149. 

Water   turned   to   blood,    plague   of, 

274  f. 
Wave-offering,  102.  ' 

Weights,  law  on,  190. 


INDICES 


339 


Well  of  the  Sun,  149. 

Wertu,  239. 

Wilderness,  west  of  Red  Sea,   152  f.; 

of  Sin,  166,  169,  176;   of  Sinai,  26; 

of  Shur,  157;   of  Zin,  170,  176. 
Witch  of  Endor,  33  f. 
Witchcraft,  32  ff. 
Wizards,  laws  on,  32. 
Words,   the   Ten,    93  ff.,    97  ff.,    103, 

178  ff. 
Worship,  of  satyrs,  32,  70;  of  Molech, 

33,    70,    190;    of  Asherah,   67,   70; 

of  host  of  heaven,  67 ;   of  ancestors, 

24,  71;   of  Teraphim,  71;   calf-,  96 

105,  175,  178,  193;   of  tombstones, 

71;  of  sepulchers,  71. 
Written  laws,  ^^,  35-42. 
Wser-Re,  245. 

Y 
Yahu,  289  ff. 
Yahweh,  abiding  on  mountains,  274; 

law  of,  34;    pillar  of,  43;    Yahweh 

Elohim,  23. 
Yakeb,  243. 
Yanhamu,  253. 
Yazah,  21. 
Year,    Sabbatical,    30;     Jubilee,    31; 


end  of,  21;  revolution  of,  21;  He- 
brew, 21;  lunar,  20  f.;  Eygptian, 
21;  solar,  20;  Canaanitic,  21; 
Babylonian,  22. 

Yedoniah,  289  ff. 

Yenoam,  228. 

Yerakh,  21. 


Zaa,  238. 

Za-ar-ki,  255. 

Zabah,  84. 

Zadok,    184,    203,    210  ff.;     sons   of, 

29  f.,  61,  218  f. 
Zephenath-Paneah,  240. 
Zared,  166  f. 
Zebulon,  tribe  of,  122,  132;   conquest 

of,  43- 
Zedekiah,  235. 
Zephat,  120. 
Zeraiah,  203,  212. 
Zeus,  Greek  divinity,  23. 
Zilpah,  45. 

Zin,  Wilderness  of,  170,  176. 
Ziv,  month-name,  21. 
Zoan,  162. 
Zoar,  257. 
Zoheleth,  stone  of,  109. 


DATE  DUE 


N0IN9«9^ 

ft»fMf^--' 

^Pfrr^ 

5Bb 

CAYLORD 

PRINTED  IN  USA. 

BS1215.4.T64 
f"e  historic  exodus 


ll,?."':,rr.l:"'°'°9'calSem,n 


HllllilMlllll 


ary-Speer  Librar 


J_  1012  000^2  1436 


